...and try to get people to say things better.)
Ain’t nuthin’ wrong with the way I be sayin’ stuff!
How would you phrase it?
I wouldn't phrase it any way at all. Asking people if they believe themselves to be irrational will give you only "no" answers (as I said before), or else provoke annoyance (as you rightly point out), depending on how you phrase it. No one is going to raise their hand and say, "Dude, I for one am totally delusional."
Which is the "Best flavor" is subjective. It has no truth or falsehood beyond the person doing the tasting. A God is an independently existing entity. It either has a reality of its own (some would say it IS reality, or the basis of all reality) or else it does not exist. One can look for evidence that it exists, or that it does not, and make a judgement about its existence based on that evidence.
Disagree. God is entirely subjective, as far as testing is concerned. As described, His existence cannot be confirmed nor falsified by any test on this side of the grave. From a rigidly evidentiary standpoint, He is therefore no different than a "favorite flavor" -- except that chocolate ice cream has no religion associated with it (that I know of).
God's existence can therefore be perfectly true for a believer, and perfectly untrue for me.
This would be accurate, for a deistic god, but a theistic god acts upon the universe. Since he interacts, it should be falsifiable. It certainly may not be currently, but think there is a case to be made that physics should one day be able to prove or disprove the existance of theistic gods.
|
How would you phrase it?
'Of those of you who are religious, How many of you can see why to an outside observer your beliefs appear to be delusions? And how do you reconsile your beliefs with that in a rational manner?'
Actually, I was very much going to answer the question this way. It really depends on where you are at the time. I will freely admit that so much of this looks irrational. And to some it might even look entirely insane. Yet for so many in it, not being in it seems crazy.
Actually, I was very much going to answer the question this way. It really depends on where you are at the time. I will freely admit that so much of this looks irrational. And to some it might even look entirely insane. Yet for so many in it, not being in it seems crazy.How would you phrase it?
'Of those of you who are religious, How many of you can see why to an outside observer your beliefs appear to be delusions? And how do you reconsile your beliefs with that in a rational manner?'
How do you square the circle on that? What makes you consider your beliefs to be logical despite lack of objective evidence?
|
Based on what you said I checked the first post of this thread (which I had never done) and did not see any policies against debating. Two or more people expressing divergent views in a series of points/counterpoints, as happens on any forum thread, is debating.Meh. Yes and no. There's a point where it no longer becomes productive.
"There is a God"
"No there isn't"
"Yes there is"
"No there isn't"
...Not much progress there.
Generally speaking, a debate often boils down to one side trying to be "right" and the other side ending up being "wrong". I love to hear from Kirth and his beliefs. He has a perspective that I'm not used to at all. I like to hear from Sebastian as he has a no nonsense way to make his point. But even though I disagree with Kirth with a number of his beliefs, if I were to tell him how stupid his practices were or whatever -- I'd be wrong. Asking him how he does things, why he does things and even saying that I don't understand and that I would think that doing something a different way might be better is ok.
(And honestly, I wasn't offended. I'm just trying to get people to understand the difference and try to get people to say things better.)
This is true, but the smug "you need to be saved, like I was" or "without Christianity we're all doomed to a swirling tide of immorality" responses from some Christians is also offensive. I'll admit that some of us non-believers are being more than a bit crass at the moment, but it's not entirely a one way street.
I'm not saying this to start another round of recriminations, just to point out that it's perfectly possible for the believers to offend as well. I think more care and possibly some Amulets of Natural Armour on all sides are called for.
For me, believing in a god comes down to which seems more reasonable. From that point, how can you say one conclusion is more rational than another?
|
|
Actually, I was very much going to answer the question this way. It really depends on where you are at the time. I will freely admit that so much of this looks irrational. And to some it might even look entirely insane. Yet for so many in it, not being in it seems crazy.How would you phrase it?
'Of those of you who are religious, How many of you can see why to an outside observer your beliefs appear to be delusions? And how do you reconsile your beliefs with that in a rational manner?'
How do you square the circle on that? What makes you consider your beliefs to be logical despite lack of objective evidence?
Ok. What objective evidence exists for anything? For all we know (and this is a genuine scientific theory) we're all holograms in a computer program that makes the Matrix look like chicken feed.
The belief that God exists is irrational. The belief in free will is irrational, too, but I know very few people who qualify as functionally sane who don't possess it. There is no evidence for consciousness? Does that mean your mind doesn't exist? There are a lot of non-rational/non-observable things out there. That doesn't necessarily make them untrue.
|
|
How do you square the circle on that? What makes you consider your beliefs to be logical despite lack of objective evidence?
"Objective" -- I question is any "evidence" is truly "objective".
The universe "magically" had a beginning -- according to most "objective evidence". Life "magically" had a beginning -- according to most "objective evidence". How can you "rationally" believe that these truly incredible acts that seem to be impossible to duplicate happened without some form of direction?
For better or worse -- "evidence" is in the eye of the beholder.
Don't be scared by some of the sensitivities.
Ah, but that exercise gained me far more insight than had I continued in the manner I was. For the sake of this thread, I am willing to make some sacrifices. I do not believe I am being untrue to myself. I can still be my snarky self elsewhere.
|
|
This is true, but the smug "you need to be saved, like I was" or "without Christianity we're all doomed to a swirling tide of immorality" responses from some Christians is also offensive. I'll admit that some of us non-believers are being more than a bit crass at the moment, but it's not entirely a one way street.
Exactly right. And a few pages I posted something to tone things down a bit. There were a number of posts from Christians that I so wanted to delete.
For all we know (and this is a genuine scientific theory) we're all holograms in a computer program that makes the Matrix look like chicken feed.
Correction: hypothesis, if you can come up with a test for it. "Theory" would mean it has already withstood a number of experimental tests. Then again, maybe it has, and I'm just unaware of them...
How can you "rationally" believe that these truly incredible acts that seem to be impossible to duplicate happened without some form of direction?
So where did the direction that created god come from?
|
|
For all we know (and this is a genuine scientific theory) we're all holograms in a computer program that makes the Matrix look like chicken feed.Correction: hypothesis, if you can come up with a test for it. "Theory" would mean it has already withstood a number of experimental tests. Then again, maybe it has, and I'm just unaware of them...
Dagnabbit! Now they*'ve got me doing it too!
I think it qualifies as an idea with theoretical tests once we get better technology. If I recall correctly, it's trying to use the fuzziness of quantum mechanics as part of the evidence, along with the information values of black holes. I'll readily admit that most of it went some distance over my head when I read it.
Then again, maybe it has, and I'm just unaware of them...
Should I write to Virginia?
If the universe is infinite and any possibility, regardless of how infinitesimal, is multiplied by infinity, it yields a positive result. That we have a concept of god must mean god is possible. Therefore, there is a god.
Somewhere.
|
|
If the universe is infinite and any possibility, regardless of how infinitesimal, is multiplied by infinity, it yields a positive result. That we have a concept of god must mean god is possible. Therefore, there is a god.
Somewhere.
If the universe was infinite, this would be true. The universe is finite (as far as we know), just very, very, very, very big. Now if we're talking about the braneverse, that's a different matter. ;-)
Which is the "Best flavor" is subjective. It has no truth or falsehood beyond the person doing the tasting. A God is an independently existing entity. It either has a reality of its own (some would say it IS reality, or the basis of all reality) or else it does not exist. One can look for evidence that it exists, or that it does not, and make a judgement about its existence based on that evidence.
Disagree. God is entirely subjective, as far as testing is concerned. As described, His existence cannot be confirmed nor falsified by any test on this side of the grave. From a rigidly evidentiary standpoint, He is therefore no different than a "favorite flavor" -- except that chocolate ice cream has no religion associated with it (that I know of).
God's existence can therefore be perfectly true for a believer, and perfectly untrue for me.
Disagree with your disagreement.
First, God is supposed to be a being with an independent existance, and as such either exists or does not exist regardless of whether anyone believes in that existence or not.
Secondly, when most religious believers say "God" they usually have something very specific in mind. There are a lot of beliefs and concepts attached to the bigger concept of God, things like historical interactions with certain people, an incarnation, miraculous events, ability to hear and answer prayers, responsibility for the existence of the universe, miracles (some in the modern era), etc. God is also supposed to have certain properties, such as being loving, omnipotent and so forth. God is also supposed to be a "person" or "persons" (as in trinity) in some sense.
One can look at the world around us and at history and seek evidence for and against any of these things, and form an informed judgment about whether this "God" really exists.
Just because we can conceive of something does not necessarily give it a probability of existence.
It exists within our mind.
How do you square the circle on that? What makes you consider your beliefs to be logical despite lack of objective evidence?"Objective" -- I question is any "evidence" is truly "objective".
The universe "magically" had a beginning -- according to most "objective evidence". Life "magically" had a beginning -- according to most "objective evidence". How can you "rationally" believe that these truly incredible acts that seem to be impossible to duplicate happened without some form of direction?
For better or worse -- "evidence" is in the eye of the beholder.
The only way in which those things can be described as magical is by using clark's 3rd law.
Saying that you do not yet understand how something happened is not ascribing supernatural cause.
We do not know the details the formation of life, we are in the process of gathering data to form a testable hyposis. Once we have formed one that stands up to those tests and is supported by evidence, there will be nothing 'magical' about the formation of life at all.
The objectivity of evidence can itself be tested and measured.
How evidence is interpreted can however vary.
The only thing that can invalidate objective evidence is alteration of perception, but if we cannot trust our senses for taking measurements, you cannot trust your perception that god is real either.
In short, your making a non argument.
|
|
If the universe was infinite, this would be true. The universe is finite (as far as we know), just very, very, very, very big.
Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space.
-- Douglas Adams
For all we know (and this is a genuine scientific theory) we're all holograms in a computer program that makes the Matrix look like chicken feed.Correction: hypothesis, if you can come up with a test for it. "Theory" would mean it has already withstood a number of experimental tests. Then again, maybe it has, and I'm just unaware of them...
Thank you for that correction Kirth, i was going to do the same. I really wish people would learn the difference between a theory and a hyposis.
|
If the universe is infinite and any possibility, regardless of how infinitesimal, is multiplied by infinity, it yields a positive result. That we have a concept of god must mean god is possible. Therefore, there is a god.
Somewhere.
Only if logically possible. God isn't.
Also, Kant pointed out that concept doesn't imply existence. Your version of the ontological argument isn't that good, I'm afraid.
What would be the consequences of homosexuality?
According to Justinian, the consequences are earthquakes, famine, and pestilence. For that, we must die. Once again I am amazed by how awesome some straights thing gay sex is. I mean, it's so great the earth moves? It's as though they're jealous. What do they know that I don't? It's like all of these people are telling me that I have a superpower. I almost feel as though I should invest in some garishly-colored spandex.
But this deserves a citation. (I would quote, but the section is fairly long. The money shot is the last paragraph on the page.)
|
|
We do not know the details the formation of life, we are in the process of gathering data to form a testable hyposis. Once we have formed one that stands up to those tests and is supported by evidence, there will be nothing 'magical' about the formation of life at all.
Just out of curiousity -- When does all this break down and "magic" becomes the only possible answer?
And the "argument" is simply that the "evidence" is with the beholder. You say that science and your "evidence" points to a lack of a divine being. I say that things are so perfect in creation and how things work, that even science has rules that work so nicely that there must be a creator.
Is that a "non argument"? Maybe so. I guess that my point is that this line of thinking really won't yield much.
That we have a concept of god must mean god is possible.That is where that logic falters. Just because we can conceive of something does not necessarily give it a probability of existence.
It meta-reality is really a broth of probablity in which our universe is but one possible universe, and in which all possible universes may exist, you are likely to find something which is atleast analigous to the impossible.
We do not know the details the formation of life, we are in the process of gathering data to form a testable hyposis. Once we have formed one that stands up to those tests and is supported by evidence, there will be nothing 'magical' about the formation of life at all.Just out of curiousity -- When does all this break down and "magic" becomes the only possible answer?
And the "argument" is simply that the "evidence" is with the beholder. You say that science and your "evidence" points to a lack of a divine being. I say that things are so perfect in creation and how things work, that even science has rules that work so nicely that there must be a creator.
Is that a "non argument"? Maybe so. I guess that my point is that this line of thinking really won't yield much.
no i do not.
I say that evidence is objective and remains the same regardless of who looks at it.
2 is always 2, it doesn't matter what an observer thinks about it.
What changes are the conclusions which are draw from the facts.
I say that i can find no evidence to support the existance of god.
That does not disprove god. Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence.
If i found evidence that made it imposible for a theistic good to exist, that would disprove god.
|
|
We do not know the details the formation of life, we are in the process of gathering data to form a testable hyposis. Once we have formed one that stands up to those tests and is supported by evidence, there will be nothing 'magical' about the formation of life at all.Just out of curiousity -- When does all this break down and "magic" becomes the only possible answer?
And the "argument" is simply that the "evidence" is with the beholder. You say that science and your "evidence" points to a lack of a divine being. I say that things are so perfect in creation and how things work, that even science has rules that work so nicely that there must be a creator.
Is that a "non argument"? Maybe so. I guess that my point is that this line of thinking really won't yield much.
I'd argue that while science does not have all the answers yet, we continue to advance in the scientific fields, and find new logical and scientific solutions to many of the fundamental problems in the universe. Meanwhile religion has continually retreated from those answers.
Science answers questions. Religion doesn't, ever.
Disagree. God is entirely subjective, as far as testing is concerned. As described, His existence cannot be confirmed nor falsified by any test on this side of the grave. From a rigidly evidentiary standpoint, He is therefore no different than a "favorite flavor" -- except that chocolate ice cream has no religion associated with it (that I know of).
Excepting that the believers here are very much advocating a deity that has interacted with reality. He has traits X and Y, has done these various deeds (like dictating holy texts, raising the dead, predicting the future, etc), and so forth. To the degree that this entity has claimed interaction with reality to which we do in fact have access, we can assess those interactions just as if we were assessing those of the charge of an electron. So at least in principle, any deity that intervenes in conventional reality is as much open to testing as gravity is.
I would agree with you if the believers forwarded the thesis of a god of no consequence, who does nothing, interacts with nothing, and is nowhere. That's indistinguishable from a god that did not exist at all. But that is not the god believed in by anybody except maybe the deists or, under some definitions, the naturalistic panentheists.
|
|
How do you square the circle on that? What makes you consider your beliefs to be logical despite lack of objective evidence?
I think we just had this discussion a few pages back.
I am not sure what people think of as objective evidence.
As far as I am concerned I have evidence. I have eye witness testimony to a resurrection. Accurate prophecies dated several hundred years before the events in question occured. A book written by 40 different men over a 1400 year period that fits together as a seamless whole. You may not see evidence but I see piles of it for my faith and feel very rational in the things I believe.
I say that things are so perfect in creation and how things work, that even science has rules that work so nicely that there must be a creator.
And god is so perfect, so what created god?
|
|
We do not know the details the formation of life, we are in the process of gathering data to form a testable hyposis. Once we have formed one that stands up to those tests and is supported by evidence, there will be nothing 'magical' about the formation of life at all.Just out of curiousity -- When does all this break down and "magic" becomes the only possible answer?
And the "argument" is simply that the "evidence" is with the beholder. You say that science and your "evidence" points to a lack of a divine being. I say that things are so perfect in creation and how things work, that even science has rules that work so nicely that there must be a creator.
Is that a "non argument"? Maybe so. I guess that my point is that this line of thinking really won't yield much.
I'd argue that while science does not have all the answers yet, we continue to advance in the scientific fields, and find new logical and scientific solutions to many of the fundamental problems in the universe. Meanwhile religion has continually retreated from those answers.
Science answers questions. Religion doesn't, ever.
Incorrect. Religion answers all questions. You, and I, just don't like the answer it uses. ;-)
|
|
Science answers questions. Religion doesn't, ever.
At least not in a rational manner. Religion requires no evidence. Many religions take pride in this, emphasizing faith over reason. This isn't to say that one way is better than another. Rational thought, embodied by science, looks at physical, observable evidence and draws conclusions, to be tested when the body of evidence changes. Religious thought is an entirely different way of thinking. Not better or worse, just different. In fact, they don't really overlap. Religion by its very nature answers questions that rational observation can't. It always has.
Again, this isn't to say one way is better than another.
Oh, and abiogenesis without a "creator" or God is quite feasible. There are tests going on as we speak on how, given the right environment, chemical chains could become self-replicating and become life. Of course, we won't be entirely sure until we observe the process in nature, but the places in which abiogenesis is likely to occur are... well, inimical to human life, to say the least.
You may not see evidence but I see piles of it for my faith and feel very rational in the things I believe.
If the bible were proven to be a fabrication, would you still believe?
I say that things are so perfect in creation and how things work, that even science has rules that work so nicely that there must be a creator.
But they are not. Your looking the evidence and drawing an eronious conclusion.
'the evidence':
Life exists
Life can only exist within a very narrow range of conditions.
This planet exists with the conditions which support life.
Some Life can observe that it exists
enviroments which can support life are rare compaired to enviroments that cant support life.
Your conclusion:
God must have fine tuned the earth to let us live here.
A logicial conclusion:
We can only exist to observe that we live on a world where life can exist because we evolved on such a planet. The vast majority of all the universe is utterly inhospitable to life.
|
|
A book written by 40 different men over a 1400 year period that fits together as a seamless whole.
I would have to disagree. I have read a great deal of the Bible (not the whole thing, admittedly) and it is a contradictory, ancient, beautiful text, but one that certainly does not agree with itself on many issues. It is certainly not seamless, its prophecies are as ambiguous as Nostradamus, and the moral compass is espouses is a little outdated. I'm not big on slavery or making sure that menstruating women are thrown out of the city. And stoning is barbaric.
The works of other religions make a great deal more sense, such as the Bhagavad-Gita (a very interesting read), the Tao Te Ching, the Vedas, and even the Qur'an.
I don't mean to demean your views, but I respectfully disagree with them.
Just out of curiousity -- When does all this break down and "magic" becomes the only possible answer?
It doesn't, it's turtles all the way down ;)
To your previous statement, the fact that we don't know how the universe came into being does not imply that it was created by an omniscient, omnipotent being. In fact I'd say that, in the absence of compelling evidence, that's the least likely explanation - Occam's razor and all.
And the "argument" is simply that the "evidence" is with the beholder. You say that science and your "evidence" points to a lack of a divine being. I say that things are so perfect in creation and how things work, that even science has rules that work so nicely that there must be a creator.
I'd say that things are so ruthless and indifferent to suffering in the natural biological order that, if it was created by a divine being, that divine being must be either evil or incompetent.
You would probably say that man did. I'd say that he always was.
If god could have always existed, then could not the universe, also, have always existed?
|
|
How depressing. But ok.A logicial conclusion:
We can only exist to observe that we live on a world where life can exist because we evolved on such a planet. The vast majority of all the universe is utterly inhospitable to life.
Not depressing, but beautiful. We get to observe the wonders of the universe in all of their glory. Most life just f***s. I mean, nothing wrong with that. But it gets old fast. ;p
How do you square the circle on that? What makes you consider your beliefs to be logical despite lack of objective evidence?I think we just had this discussion a few pages back.
I am not sure what people think of as objective evidence.
As far as I am concerned I have evidence. I have eye witness testimony to a resurrection. Accurate prophecies dated several hundred years before the events in question occured. A book written by 40 different men over a 1400 year period that fits together as a seamless whole. You may not see evidence but I see piles of it for my faith and feel very rational in the things I believe.
You have documents that proport to be eye witness testimony, but no chain of custody or proof of authentisty.
I would need to know exactly which 'prophosies' exactly your refering too, but your hardly alone in making such claims.
A, it got to be seamless thanks to massive editing(see council of nicea) B, so seamless that there are hundreds of different interpritations and denominations based upon it all claiming to have the truth. C, that contains multiple contraditions.
Not to mention that none of this is evidence. The bible is as much evidence of the existance of god as dianetics is evidence for scientology. Actually, scientology has a slight one up on christianity here in that it really only has one major schism, and that was on policial grounds, rather than doctrinal grounds.