| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Vacendak" |
| Date: |
04 Sep 2004 03:53:01 PM |
| Object: |
A god who plays mind games |
That's how i see it.
You can't detect him with any of our 5 senses, and yet we still have to
believe in him. Because if we don't, we all get sent to hell to be tortured
for all eternity.A god who punishes people for making an honest mistake, by
reading the wrong sacred text or by calling him the wrong name.
"A god who puts out traps for people, invites them to sin, and allows them
to sin and commit crimes he could prevent. Only to finally get the barbarian
pleasure to punish them in an excessive way, of no use for himself, without
them changing their ways and without their example preventing others from
committing crimes." Baron d'Holbach (Systeme de la Nature, 1789)
Why should i believe in a god like this?
.
|
|
| User: "keith" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
19 Sep 2004 09:47:31 AM |
|
|
"Icarus" <icarus_uk@email.com> wrote in message news:<2r2q4sF15dftaU1@uni-berlin.de>...
keith wrote:
jesshc@phantomemail.com (JessHC) wrote in message
news:<d58e3ac.0409170809.7956b3bb@posting.google.com>...
keithj43@yahoo.com (keith) wrote in message
news:<ba696799.0409161814.2eed9195@posting.google.com>...
jesshc@phantomemail.com (JessHC) wrote in message
news:<d58e3ac.0409161412.6dc6082d@posting.google.com>...
keithj43@yahoo.com (keith) wrote in message
news:<ba696799.0409160536.3e38bab5@posting.google.com>... >>>>>
God has shown himself, you didn't notice?
Obviously not. And just think: the majority of the people
of the
world also didn't notice.
Not so; the majority of people of the world believe in God,
believe
that the universe couldn't exist unless God did.
No, the majority of people in the world believe in *a* god.
Exactly. That we don't all agree about the details is perfectly
consistent with God showing *something* of his existence to
the vast majority of people.
Optical illusions are also seen by the vast majority of people, so
that's not a particularly helpful point for your argument.
Your observation about optical illusions is neither helpful nor
hurtful to my argument, I would say. But my observation that the vast
majority of humans are theists does indeed help my rebuttal of the
claim that "the majority of the people of the world also didn't notice
[that God wasn't around].
Additionally, the majority of the people of the world have
gods that
conflict with each other, and often have conflicting ideas
about the
gods they worship.
In other words, our opinions about God cannot all be right.
But all of
us theists agree that a deity exists, which is perfectly
consistent
with God showing us all something of his existence.
It's also consistent with gods just being characters from the human
imagination, with no basis in fact...
Yes it is consistent with that possibility.
and we *know* that humans are
very good at inventing all sorts of fantasy characters, both realistic
and supernatural. Even I can do it. That explanation for the
existence of the idea of gods only depends on what we already know
about the universe, whereas your explanation (that the idea exists
because a god really exists) relies on something unproven. The 'gods
are just a human fantasy' explanation fits known facts, whereas the
'gods are real' answer doesn't. Seems to me that makes atheism the
rational choice (unless and until someone comes up with something that
the 'gods are just a human fantasy' explanation can't account for).
But the "we are easily fooled..." (alleged) explanation can account
for *everything*! We are easily fooled, so why believe we are right
about astronomy or biology? We are easily fooled, so why believe that
our brains have helped us survive? I owuld say it would be positively
*irrational* to take the "we're easily fooled so seriously as I
described above, and I see no rational reason why theistic belief
ought to be treated differently from the kinds of things I just
mentioned.
see yuo later
Keith
<snippage>...
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
19 Sep 2004 11:23:17 AM |
|
|
"keith" <keithj43@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ba696799.0409190647.25873f1f@posting.google.com...
"Icarus" <icarus_uk@email.com> wrote in message
news:<2r2q4sF15dftaU1@uni-berlin.de>...
keith wrote:
jesshc@phantomemail.com (JessHC) wrote in message
news:<d58e3ac.0409170809.7956b3bb@posting.google.com>...
keithj43@yahoo.com (keith) wrote in message
news:<ba696799.0409161814.2eed9195@posting.google.com>...
jesshc@phantomemail.com (JessHC) wrote in message
news:<d58e3ac.0409161412.6dc6082d@posting.google.com>...
keithj43@yahoo.com (keith) wrote in message
news:<ba696799.0409160536.3e38bab5@posting.google.com>... >>>>>
God has shown himself, you didn't notice?
Obviously not. And just think: the majority of the people
of the
world also didn't notice.
Not so; the majority of people of the world believe in God,
believe
that the universe couldn't exist unless God did.
No, the majority of people in the world believe in *a* god.
Exactly. That we don't all agree about the details is perfectly
consistent with God showing *something* of his existence to
the vast majority of people.
Optical illusions are also seen by the vast majority of people, so
that's not a particularly helpful point for your argument.
Your observation about optical illusions is neither helpful nor
hurtful to my argument, I would say. But my observation that the vast
majority of humans are theists does indeed help my rebuttal of the
claim that "the majority of the people of the world also didn't notice
[that God wasn't around].
Additionally, the majority of the people of the world have
gods that
conflict with each other, and often have conflicting ideas
about the
gods they worship.
In other words, our opinions about God cannot all be right.
But all of
us theists agree that a deity exists, which is perfectly
consistent
with God showing us all something of his existence.
It's also consistent with gods just being characters from the human
imagination, with no basis in fact...
Yes it is consistent with that possibility.
and we *know* that humans are
very good at inventing all sorts of fantasy characters, both realistic
and supernatural. Even I can do it. That explanation for the
existence of the idea of gods only depends on what we already know
about the universe, whereas your explanation (that the idea exists
because a god really exists) relies on something unproven. The 'gods
are just a human fantasy' explanation fits known facts, whereas the
'gods are real' answer doesn't. Seems to me that makes atheism the
rational choice (unless and until someone comes up with something that
the 'gods are just a human fantasy' explanation can't account for).
But the "we are easily fooled..." (alleged) explanation can account
for *everything*! We are easily fooled, so why believe we are right
about astronomy or biology? We are easily fooled, so why believe that
our brains have helped us survive? I owuld say it would be positively
*irrational* to take the "we're easily fooled so seriously as I
described above, and I see no rational reason why theistic belief
ought to be treated differently from the kinds of things I just
mentioned.
Because those other things are supported by at least some amount of
objective evidence, whereas theistic belief is not.
see yuo later
Keith
<snippage>...
.
|
|
|
| User: "keith" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
20 Sep 2004 09:55:29 AM |
|
|
"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message news:<Vni3d.66253$787.8621@fe2.columbus.rr.com>...
"keith" <keithj43@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ba696799.0409190647.25873f1f@posting.google.com...
"Icarus" <icarus_uk@email.com> wrote in message
news:<2r2q4sF15dftaU1@uni-berlin.de>...
keith wrote:
(snip)
and we *know* that humans are
very good at inventing all sorts of fantasy characters, both realistic
and supernatural. Even I can do it. That explanation for the
existence of the idea of gods only depends on what we already know
about the universe, whereas your explanation (that the idea exists
because a god really exists) relies on something unproven. The 'gods
are just a human fantasy' explanation fits known facts, whereas the
'gods are real' answer doesn't. Seems to me that makes atheism the
rational choice (unless and until someone comes up with something that
the 'gods are just a human fantasy' explanation can't account for).
But the "we are easily fooled..." (alleged) explanation can account
for *everything*! We are easily fooled, so why believe we are right
about astronomy or biology? We are easily fooled, so why believe that
our brains have helped us survive? I owuld say it would be positively
*irrational* to take the "we're easily fooled so seriously as I
described above, and I see no rational reason why theistic belief
ought to be treated differently from the kinds of things I just
mentioned.
Because those other things are supported by at least some amount of
objective evidence, whereas theistic belief is not.
But the "we are easily fooled..." alleged explanation can account for
our believing that those other things are supported by at least some
evidence! If that alleged explanation makes it irrational to believe
in God then why wouldn't it also make it irrational to believe that
there *is* evidence for any of those other things?
keith
see yuo later
Keith
<snippage>...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
19 Sep 2004 01:28:41 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 16:23:17 GMT, "John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:
"keith" <keithj43@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ba696799.0409190647.25873f1f@posting.google.com...
"Icarus" <icarus_uk@email.com> wrote in message
news:<2r2q4sF15dftaU1@uni-berlin.de>...
keith wrote:
jesshc@phantomemail.com (JessHC) wrote in message
news:<d58e3ac.0409170809.7956b3bb@posting.google.com>...
keithj43@yahoo.com (keith) wrote in message
news:<ba696799.0409161814.2eed9195@posting.google.com>...
jesshc@phantomemail.com (JessHC) wrote in message
news:<d58e3ac.0409161412.6dc6082d@posting.google.com>...
keithj43@yahoo.com (keith) wrote in message
news:<ba696799.0409160536.3e38bab5@posting.google.com>... >>>>>
God has shown himself, you didn't notice?
Obviously not. And just think: the majority of the people
of the
world also didn't notice.
Not so; the majority of people of the world believe in God,
believe
that the universe couldn't exist unless God did.
No, the majority of people in the world believe in *a* god.
Exactly. That we don't all agree about the details is perfectly
consistent with God showing *something* of his existence to
the vast majority of people.
Optical illusions are also seen by the vast majority of people, so
that's not a particularly helpful point for your argument.
Your observation about optical illusions is neither helpful nor
hurtful to my argument, I would say. But my observation that the vast
majority of humans are theists does indeed help my rebuttal of the
claim that "the majority of the people of the world also didn't notice
[that God wasn't around].
Additionally, the majority of the people of the world have
gods that
conflict with each other, and often have conflicting ideas
about the
gods they worship.
In other words, our opinions about God cannot all be right.
But all of
us theists agree that a deity exists, which is perfectly
consistent
with God showing us all something of his existence.
It's also consistent with gods just being characters from the human
imagination, with no basis in fact...
Yes it is consistent with that possibility.
and we *know* that humans are
very good at inventing all sorts of fantasy characters, both realistic
and supernatural. Even I can do it. That explanation for the
existence of the idea of gods only depends on what we already know
about the universe, whereas your explanation (that the idea exists
because a god really exists) relies on something unproven. The 'gods
are just a human fantasy' explanation fits known facts, whereas the
'gods are real' answer doesn't. Seems to me that makes atheism the
rational choice (unless and until someone comes up with something that
the 'gods are just a human fantasy' explanation can't account for).
But the "we are easily fooled..." (alleged) explanation can account
for *everything*! We are easily fooled, so why believe we are right
about astronomy or biology? We are easily fooled, so why believe that
our brains have helped us survive? I owuld say it would be positively
*irrational* to take the "we're easily fooled so seriously as I
described above, and I see no rational reason why theistic belief
ought to be treated differently from the kinds of things I just
mentioned.
Because those other things are supported by at least some amount of
objective evidence, whereas theistic belief is not.
Not sure we shouldn't cede Keith the benefit of the doubt in this.
If, when measuring a simple linear distance, it's an unavoidable hazard that the
ruler may be miscalibrated by a few microns per meter, or the observer's eyes
may introduce a measurement error an order of magnitude greater than that,
why not allow that bunyips are infinitely long? Simple humility would demand it.
--
/Apostate
atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by Lani_girl, first post; Billions Served!
I doubt, therefore I might be.
For e-mail, hold that tiger!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
19 Sep 2004 04:30:04 PM |
|
|
(keith) wrote in message news:<ba696799.0409190647.25873f1f@posting.google.com>...
"Icarus" <icarus_uk@email.com> wrote in message news:<2r2q4sF15dftaU1@uni-berlin.de>...
keith wrote:
jesshc@phantomemail.com (JessHC) wrote in message
news:<d58e3ac.0409170809.7956b3bb@posting.google.com>...
(keith) wrote in message
news:<ba696799.0409161814.2eed9195@posting.google.com>...
jesshc@phantomemail.com (JessHC) wrote in message
news:<d58e3ac.0409161412.6dc6082d@posting.google.com>...
(keith) wrote in message
news:<ba696799.0409160536.3e38bab5@posting.google.com>... >>>>>
God has shown himself, you didn't notice?
Obviously not. And just think: the majority of the people
of the world also didn't notice.
Not so; the majority of people of the world believe in God,
believe
that the universe couldn't exist unless God did.
No, the majority of people in the world believe in *a* god.
Exactly. That we don't all agree about the details is perfectly
consistent with God showing *something* of his existence to
the vast majority of people.
Optical illusions are also seen by the vast majority of people, so
that's not a particularly helpful point for your argument.
Your observation about optical illusions is neither helpful nor
hurtful to my argument, I would say. But my observation that the vast
majority of humans are theists does indeed help my rebuttal of the
claim that "the majority of the people of the world also didn't notice
[that God wasn't around].
What I meant was that the majority of the people of the world hadn't
noticed that the christian god wasn't around, which was what I assumed
your statement referred to. The christian god is described in
particular, relatively specific terms. My point was that there are
lots of things that people ascribe to one god or another because they
don't understand how it works. Other people then claim, "Oh, no,
that's a myth, because *my* god is really the one in control." When
you make the statements "God has shown himself, you didn't notice?"
and "That we don't all agree about the details is perfectly consistent
with God showing *something* of his existence to the vast majority of
people" I think demonstrates that you're thinking exclusively in terms
of *your* god, and the description of *your* god as found in the bible
is often in conflict with the descriptions of *other* gods. I don't
think the "observation that the vast majority of humans are theists"
*does* help your rebuttal; I think it merely demonstrates that the
vast majority of humans desperately need comfort from and explanation
of the unknown, and that they get that comfort from inventing a
all-protective, all-powerful, all-knowing parent. What might help
your rebuttal would be more agreement between the various
descriptions, but apart from the idea that "our superdad can lick your
superdad," I don't really see it.
Additionally, the majority of the people of the world have gods
that conflict with each other, and often have conflicting ideas
about the gods they worship.
In other words, our opinions about God cannot all be right. But all
of us theists agree that a deity exists, which is perfectly consistent
with God showing us all something of his existence.
It's also consistent with gods just being characters from the human
imagination, with no basis in fact...
Yes it is consistent with that possibility.
and we *know* that humans are
very good at inventing all sorts of fantasy characters, both realistic
and supernatural. Even I can do it. That explanation for the
existence of the idea of gods only depends on what we already know
about the universe, whereas your explanation (that the idea exists
because a god really exists) relies on something unproven. The 'gods
are just a human fantasy' explanation fits known facts, whereas the
'gods are real' answer doesn't. Seems to me that makes atheism the
rational choice (unless and until someone comes up with something that
the 'gods are just a human fantasy' explanation can't account for).
But the "we are easily fooled..." (alleged) explanation can account
for *everything*! We are easily fooled, so why believe we are right
about astronomy or biology? We are easily fooled, so why believe that
our brains have helped us survive? I owuld say it would be positively
*irrational* to take the "we're easily fooled so seriously as I
described above, and I see no rational reason why theistic belief
ought to be treated differently from the kinds of things I just
mentioned.
You already know why we believe we're right about astronomy, biology,
and survival, and all that other stuff; we have lots of evidence that
potentially *anybody* can verify objectively. That's how science
works; one person says, "Hey, I tried this experiment, and here's what
happened." Another person tries the same experiment, and either gets
the same results, or doesn't. If lots of people get the same results,
they jump up and down and shout "Eureka!" If lots of people don't get
the same results, they jump up and down and shout "***** you!" There
is currently no way to objectively verify the existence of god; if you
come up with one, I promise to listen. Now, it's certainly possible
that there's a god with a sufficient sense of humor to be fooling
everybody, but that seems pretty unreasonable, so I chose to reject
it. It seems MUCH more likely that gods are a result of somebody not
understanding how something works, *wanting* to have an explanation,
and inventing a magic being to cover it. Then everybody else, also
wanting but lacking an explanation, says, "Hey yeah, you must be
right, thanks."
.
|
|
|
| User: "keith" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
20 Sep 2004 03:01:38 PM |
|
|
(JessHC) wrote in message news:<d58e3ac.0409191330.2cb34261@posting.google.com>...
keithj43@yahoo.com (keith) wrote in message news:<ba696799.0409190647.25873f1f@posting.google.com>...
"Icarus" <icarus_uk@email.com> wrote in message news:<2r2q4sF15dftaU1@uni-berlin.de>...
keith wrote:
(JessHC) wrote in message
news:<d58e3ac.0409170809.7956b3bb@posting.google.com>...
keithj43@yahoo.com (keith) wrote in message
news:<ba696799.0409161814.2eed9195@posting.google.com>...
(JessHC) wrote in message
news:<d58e3ac.0409161412.6dc6082d@posting.google.com>...
keithj43@yahoo.com (keith) wrote in message
news:<ba696799.0409160536.3e38bab5@posting.google.com>... >>>>>
God has shown himself, you didn't notice?
Obviously not. And just think: the majority of the people
of the world also didn't notice.
Not so; the majority of people of the world believe in God,
believe
that the universe couldn't exist unless God did.
No, the majority of people in the world believe in *a* god.
Exactly. That we don't all agree about the details is perfectly
consistent with God showing *something* of his existence to
the vast majority of people.
Optical illusions are also seen by the vast majority of people, so
that's not a particularly helpful point for your argument.
Your observation about optical illusions is neither helpful nor
hurtful to my argument, I would say. But my observation that the vast
majority of humans are theists does indeed help my rebuttal of the
claim that "the majority of the people of the world also didn't notice
[that God wasn't around].
What I meant was that the majority of the people of the world hadn't
noticed that the christian god wasn't around, which was what I assumed
your statement referred to. The christian god is described in
particular, relatively specific terms. My point was that there are
lots of things that people ascribe to one god or another because they
don't understand how it works. Other people then claim, "Oh, no,
that's a myth, because *my* god is really the one in control." When
you make the statements "God has shown himself, you didn't notice?"
and "That we don't all agree about the details is perfectly consistent
with God showing *something* of his existence to the vast majority of
people" I think demonstrates that you're thinking exclusively in terms
of *your* god,...
My "...didn't you notice..." comment was a flippant response to Jez's
flippant question. I was being a butt and probably ought not have been
so. But here is the point I was trying to make to you:
That people disagree about the details doesn't mean that God
(whichever religion is right about him) doesn't mean they didn't
notice God was around. I *do* think that Christianity is right about
God, but I am not suggesting that the majority have noticed *that*.
But just as everyone might notice that a man was walking down the
street but not everyone saw who he was, it is similarly possible that
God--my God, the Christian God--is the one that the vast majority of
humans have noticed. I know that's not your opinion, you suggest below
that theism stems from wishful thinking, but I do not share that
opinion with you.
and the description of *your* god as found in the bible
is often in conflict with the descriptions of *other* gods. I don't
think the "observation that the vast majority of humans are theists"
*does* help your rebuttal; I think it merely demonstrates that the
vast majority of humans desperately need comfort from and explanation
of the unknown, and that they get that comfort from inventing a
all-protective, all-powerful, all-knowing parent. What might help
your rebuttal would be more agreement between the various
descriptions, but apart from the idea that "our superdad can lick your
superdad," I don't really see it.
I would say that the data--that most people believe in God-- is
consistent with your hypothesis and with mine.
Additionally, the majority of the people of the world have gods
that conflict with each other, and often have conflicting ideas
about the gods they worship.
In other words, our opinions about God cannot all be right. But all
of us theists agree that a deity exists, which is perfectly consistent
with God showing us all something of his existence.
It's also consistent with gods just being characters from the human
imagination, with no basis in fact...
Yes it is consistent with that possibility.
and we *know* that humans are
very good at inventing all sorts of fantasy characters, both realistic
and supernatural. Even I can do it. That explanation for the
existence of the idea of gods only depends on what we already know
about the universe, whereas your explanation (that the idea exists
because a god really exists) relies on something unproven. The 'gods
are just a human fantasy' explanation fits known facts, whereas the
'gods are real' answer doesn't. Seems to me that makes atheism the
rational choice (unless and until someone comes up with something that
the 'gods are just a human fantasy' explanation can't account for).
But the "we are easily fooled..." (alleged) explanation can account
for *everything*! We are easily fooled, so why believe we are right
about astronomy or biology? We are easily fooled, so why believe that
our brains have helped us survive? I owuld say it would be positively
*irrational* to take the "we're easily fooled so seriously as I
described above, and I see no rational reason why theistic belief
ought to be treated differently from the kinds of things I just
mentioned.
You already know why we believe we're right about astronomy, biology,
and survival, and all that other stuff; we have lots of evidence that
potentially *anybody* can verify objectively.
But the "we're easily fooled" explanation could account for our
believing *that* the evidence even exists, or that it points the way
we judge it to point. It seems to me that while we ought to consider
the possibility that we are fooling ourselves, this consideration
cannot be the default the way Icarus seems to think.
That's how science
works; one person says, "Hey, I tried this experiment, and here's what
happened." Another person tries the same experiment, and either gets
the same results, or doesn't. If lots of people get the same results,
they jump up and down and shout "Eureka!" If lots of people don't get
the same results, they jump up and down and shout "***** you!" There
is currently no way to objectively verify the existence of god; if you
come up with one, I promise to listen. Now, it's certainly possible
that there's a god with a sufficient sense of humor to be fooling
everybody, but that seems pretty unreasonable, so I chose to reject
it. It seems MUCH more likely that gods are a result of somebody not
understanding how something works, *wanting* to have an explanation,
and inventing a magic being to cover it. Then everybody else, also
wanting but lacking an explanation, says, "Hey yeah, you must be
right, thanks."
I don't share the opinion you state above about God. Here's my
opinion: the idea that the universe could even exist without God
existing is extremely implausible. It;s not about wishing for an
explanation I don't really have, no more than my trusting the
scientific method is about my wishing for an explanation that I don't
really have.
see you later
keith
.
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
21 Sep 2004 02:39:38 PM |
|
|
(keith) wrote in message news:<ba696799.0409201201.7a1268f8@posting.google.com>...
jesshc@phantomemail.com (JessHC) wrote in message news:<d58e3ac.0409191330.2cb34261@posting.google.com>...
(keith) wrote in message news:<ba696799.0409190647.25873f1f@posting.google.com>...
<snip>
Your observation about optical illusions is neither helpful nor
hurtful to my argument, I would say. But my observation that the vast
majority of humans are theists does indeed help my rebuttal of the
claim that "the majority of the people of the world also didn't notice
[that God wasn't around].
What I meant was that the majority of the people of the world hadn't
noticed that the christian god wasn't around, which was what I assumed
your statement referred to. The christian god is described in
particular, relatively specific terms. My point was that there are
lots of things that people ascribe to one god or another because they
don't understand how it works. Other people then claim, "Oh, no,
that's a myth, because *my* god is really the one in control." When
you make the statements "God has shown himself, you didn't notice?"
and "That we don't all agree about the details is perfectly consistent
with God showing *something* of his existence to the vast majority of
people" I think demonstrates that you're thinking exclusively in terms
of *your* god,...
My "...didn't you notice..." comment was a flippant response to Jez's
flippant question. I was being a butt and probably ought not have been
so. But here is the point I was trying to make to you:
That people disagree about the details doesn't mean that God
(whichever religion is right about him) doesn't mean they didn't
notice God was around. I *do* think that Christianity is right about
God, but I am not suggesting that the majority have noticed *that*.
But just as everyone might notice that a man was walking down the
street but not everyone saw who he was, it is similarly possible that
God--my God, the Christian God--is the one that the vast majority of
humans have noticed. I know that's not your opinion, you suggest below
that theism stems from wishful thinking, but I do not share that
opinion with you.
People noticing someone walking down the street would agree on the
detail that they saw *someone.* In the case of god, different people
looking at exactly the same evidence reach opposite conclusions; some
see something, or at least claim to see something, and others don't.
I can certainly grant that possibility; Jesus said he preached in
parables to hide what he was saying, so at least in terms of the
christian god, there seems to be an element of secrecy and exclusivity
on the part of that deity. But it makes no sense to me, especially in
light of other aspects of christianity. I understand that this
doesn't disprove the existence of deities, but the disparities
strongly suggest (to me, anyway) that at least some, if not all, of
the people claiming to have perceived a deity have misinterpreted at
least some, if not all, of the aspects of whatever it is they think
they're observing, if, in fact, they've actually observed something
real and haven't just experienced some sort of hallucination or
delusion. And still it doesn't actually disprove the existence of a
deity. Compounding the problem is language and communications
difficulties (witness my own right now).
<snip>
But the "we are easily fooled..." (alleged) explanation can account
for *everything*! We are easily fooled, so why believe we are right
about astronomy or biology? We are easily fooled, so why believe that
our brains have helped us survive? I owuld say it would be positively
*irrational* to take the "we're easily fooled so seriously as I
described above, and I see no rational reason why theistic belief
ought to be treated differently from the kinds of things I just
mentioned.
You already know why we believe we're right about astronomy, biology,
and survival, and all that other stuff; we have lots of evidence that
potentially *anybody* can verify objectively.
But the "we're easily fooled" explanation could account for our
believing *that* the evidence even exists, or that it points the way
we judge it to point. It seems to me that while we ought to consider
the possibility that we are fooling ourselves, this consideration
cannot be the default the way Icarus seems to think.
It's possible our perceptions are limited in such a way that we might
all be fooled about all sorts of stuff, but it seems extremely
unlikely to me that, in terms of scientific observations, so many
people could be simultaneously independently fooled about a given
subject and still reach the exact same conclusions using the exact
same methods every time. And I think that's part of the job of peer
review; to reduce as much as possible the possiblity of having fooled
ourselves.
That's how science
works; one person says, "Hey, I tried this experiment, and here's what
happened." Another person tries the same experiment, and either gets
the same results, or doesn't. If lots of people get the same results,
they jump up and down and shout "Eureka!" If lots of people don't get
the same results, they jump up and down and shout "***** you!" There
is currently no way to objectively verify the existence of god; if you
come up with one, I promise to listen. Now, it's certainly possible
that there's a god with a sufficient sense of humor to be fooling
everybody, but that seems pretty unreasonable, so I chose to reject
it. It seems MUCH more likely that gods are a result of somebody not
understanding how something works, *wanting* to have an explanation,
and inventing a magic being to cover it. Then everybody else, also
wanting but lacking an explanation, says, "Hey yeah, you must be
right, thanks."
I don't share the opinion you state above about God. Here's my
opinion: the idea that the universe could even exist without God
existing is extremely implausible. It;s not about wishing for an
explanation I don't really have, no more than my trusting the
scientific method is about my wishing for an explanation that I don't
really have.
I'm confused about how you reach that conclusion, since it seems like
the scientific method is a really good way to get explanations one
doesn't have, but that's okay. What I meant above was that it seems
likely gods were originally invented to explain the unexplainable, not
that that's why you believe now.
see you later
keith
Okey dokey.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Icarus" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
21 Sep 2004 06:51:37 PM |
|
|
keith wrote:
"Icarus" <icarus_uk@email.com> wrote in message
news:<2r2q4sF15dftaU1@uni-berlin.de>...
keith wrote:
jesshc@phantomemail.com (JessHC) wrote in message
news:<d58e3ac.0409170809.7956b3bb@posting.google.com>...
keithj43@yahoo.com (keith) wrote in message
news:<ba696799.0409161814.2eed9195@posting.google.com>...
jesshc@phantomemail.com (JessHC) wrote in message
news:<d58e3ac.0409161412.6dc6082d@posting.google.com>...
keithj43@yahoo.com (keith) wrote in message
news:<ba696799.0409160536.3e38bab5@posting.google.com>...
God has shown himself, you didn't notice?
Obviously not. And just think: the majority of the people
of the
world also didn't notice.
Not so; the majority of people of the world believe in God,
believe
that the universe couldn't exist unless God did.
No, the majority of people in the world believe in *a* god.
Exactly. That we don't all agree about the details is
perfectly consistent with God showing *something* of his
existence to the vast majority of people.
Optical illusions are also seen by the vast majority of
people, so that's not a particularly helpful point for your
argument.
Your observation about optical illusions is neither helpful nor
hurtful to my argument, I would say.
Agreed - But we understand that optical illusions *are* illusions,
even though we still see them. Your comment (that disagreeing on the
details of religion is consistent with the existence of a god) relies
on *your* implicit assumption that a god wouldn't necessarily cause
everyone to agree on the details. How do we know this to be true?
Only on your say-so, it seems.
I could equally well say that a necessary property of a god, if one
really existed, is that he would cause all religious people to know
for certain and agree completely on all the details, and therefore
that any disagreement on details is cast-iron proof that no gods
exist. Who's to say that you're right and I'm wrong? In a fair
discussion, we can't allow you to make up rules for what is consistent
with the existence of a god, and then say that lo and behold, the
world appears to follow the rules - You have to justify the rules.
Can you? Can you prove that disagreement on religious matters *is* a
possible property of a universe with a god?
But my observation that
the vast
majority of humans are theists does indeed help my rebuttal of
the
claim that "the majority of the people of the world also
didn't notice [that God wasn't around].
Not if disagreement disproves the existence of gods, as I explained
above.
Additionally, the majority of the people of the world have
gods that
conflict with each other, and often have conflicting ideas
about the
gods they worship.
In other words, our opinions about God cannot all be right.
But all of
us theists agree that a deity exists, which is perfectly
consistent
with God showing us all something of his existence.
It's also consistent with gods just being characters from the
human imagination, with no basis in fact...
Yes it is consistent with that possibility.
and we *know* that humans are
very good at inventing all sorts of fantasy characters, both
realistic and supernatural. Even I can do it. That
explanation for the existence of the idea of gods only
depends on what we already know about the universe, whereas
your explanation (that the idea exists because a god really
exists) relies on something unproven. The 'gods are just a
human fantasy' explanation fits known facts, whereas the
'gods are real' answer doesn't. Seems to me that makes
atheism the rational choice (unless and until someone comes
up with something that the 'gods are just a human fantasy'
explanation can't account for).
But the "we are easily fooled..." (alleged) explanation can
account
for *everything*! We are easily fooled, so why believe we are
right
about astronomy or biology? We are easily fooled, so why
believe that
our brains have helped us survive? I owuld say it would be
positively *irrational* to take the "we're easily fooled so
seriously as I
described above, and I see no rational reason why theistic
belief
ought to be treated differently from the kinds of things I just
mentioned.
If we have wrong ideas about astronomy or biology, then they can be
challenged with reason and objective evidence - We see those things as
valid and justified ways of arriving at the truth. In the same way,
if we're wrong about the non-existence of gods, then that can be
challenged with reason or evidence. All you have to do is provide
some fact or argument which is unarguably inconsistent with there
being no gods. Can you? Until you or someone else can, atheism is
the only rational view because it doesn't rely on something that's not
in evidence. Theism does.
All the best...
John.
.
|
|
|
| User: "keith" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
22 Sep 2004 09:10:00 PM |
|
|
"Icarus" <icarus_uk@email.com> wrote in message news:<2rc225F181oouU3@uni-berlin.de>...
keith wrote:
"Icarus" <icarus_uk@email.com> wrote in message
news:<2r2q4sF15dftaU1@uni-berlin.de>...
keith wrote:
jesshc@phantomemail.com (JessHC) wrote in message
news:<d58e3ac.0409170809.7956b3bb@posting.google.com>...
keithj43@yahoo.com (keith) wrote in message
news:<ba696799.0409161814.2eed9195@posting.google.com>...
jesshc@phantomemail.com (JessHC) wrote in message
news:<d58e3ac.0409161412.6dc6082d@posting.google.com>...
(snip)
Exactly. That we don't all agree about the details is
perfectly consistent with God showing *something* of his
existence to the vast majority of people.
Optical illusions are also seen by the vast majority of
people, so that's not a particularly helpful point for your
argument.
Your observation about optical illusions is neither helpful nor
hurtful to my argument, I would say.
Agreed - But we understand that optical illusions *are* illusions,
even though we still see them. Your comment (that disagreeing on the
details of religion is consistent with the existence of a god) relies
on *your* implicit assumption that a god wouldn't necessarily cause
everyone to agree on the details. How do we know this to be true?
Only on your say-so, it seems.
Well, I'm sure you shouldn't accept it on my say-so:-)
But...my claim is that God wouldn't *necessarily* cause everyone to
agree on the details, which seems like a rather weaker claim that the
contrary claimthat God would NECESSARILY cause everyone to agree on
the details. It seems to me that in general cases "not necessarily" is
the default.
I could equally well say that a necessary property of a god, if one
really existed, is that he would cause all religious people to know
for certain and agree completely on all the details, and therefore
that any disagreement on details is cast-iron proof that no gods
exist. Who's to say that you're right and I'm wrong?
If you did say that then *you'd* be the one to say you were right--I'd
be the one to say you were wrong. If your question is how our
disagreement can be objectively settled, I'd say we could compare it
to reality and you'd see I was right:-)
In a fair
discussion, we can't allow you to make up rules for what is consistent
with the existence of a god, and then say that lo and behold, the
world appears to follow the rules - You have to justify the rules.
Can you? Can you prove that disagreement on religious matters *is* a
possible property of a universe with a god?
I don't think I *can* prove it, but I don't think you can prove it
isn't possible. I agree that given the assumption that disagreement is
impossible if God exists, then the fact that people do disagree would
entail the non-existence of God, which would entail that nobody had
noticed that God was around. In that case, my claim that God is around
would be false.
But my observation that
the vast
majority of humans are theists does indeed help my rebuttal of
the
claim that "the majority of the people of the world also
didn't notice [that God wasn't around].
Not if disagreement disproves the existence of gods, as I explained
above.
You are quite correct about that.
(snip)
and we *know* that humans are
very good at inventing all sorts of fantasy characters, both
realistic and supernatural. Even I can do it. That
explanation for the existence of the idea of gods only
depends on what we already know about the universe, whereas
your explanation (that the idea exists because a god really
exists) relies on something unproven. The 'gods are just a
human fantasy' explanation fits known facts, whereas the
'gods are real' answer doesn't. Seems to me that makes
atheism the rational choice (unless and until someone comes
up with something that the 'gods are just a human fantasy'
explanation can't account for).
But the "we are easily fooled..." (alleged) explanation can
account
for *everything*! We are easily fooled, so why believe we are
right
about astronomy or biology? We are easily fooled, so why
believe that
our brains have helped us survive? I owuld say it would be
positively *irrational* to take the "we're easily fooled so
seriously as I
described above, and I see no rational reason why theistic
belief
ought to be treated differently from the kinds of things I just
mentioned.
If we have wrong ideas about astronomy or biology, then they can be
challenged with reason and objective evidence - We see those things as
valid and justified ways of arriving at the truth...
But the "we are easily fooled" could be account for *that* as well; if
I reasoned the way you suggested I should wrt my religious beliefs,
why should I believe any of our conclusions drawn from what we believe
to be evidence? The fact is, you know that reason and evidence are
ways to advance our knowledge because you have an accurate intuition
to that effect--you can't use reason to show that reason is valid
because that would be circular reasoning and thus invalid.
see you
keith
(snip)
In the same same way,
if we're wrong about the non-existence of gods, then that can be
challenged with reason or evidence. All you have to do is provide
some fact or argument which is unarguably inconsistent with there
being no gods. Can you? Until you or someone else can, atheism is
the only rational view because it doesn't rely on something that's not
in evidence. Theism does.
All the best...
John.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Icarus" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
23 Sep 2004 08:58:53 AM |
|
|
keith wrote:
....
Your comment (that
disagreeing on the details of religion is consistent with the
existence of a god) relies on *your* implicit assumption that
a god wouldn't necessarily cause everyone to agree on the
details. How do we know this to be true? Only on your
say-so, it seems.
Well, I'm sure you shouldn't accept it on my say-so:-)
But...my claim is that God wouldn't *necessarily* cause
everyone to
agree on the details, which seems like a rather weaker claim
that the
contrary claimthat God would NECESSARILY cause everyone to
agree on
the details. It seems to me that in general cases "not
necessarily" is
the default.
I don't see why. I don't see that you have any verifiable
argument or evidence to claim that a god wouldn't necessarily
cause everyone to agree on the details, so it's just your
assumption - In fact, it's an assumption that you must
*necessarily* make, given that people *do* disagree on the
details, because if you don't make that assumption then you
necessarily have to give up your belief in god. A god who makes
everyone believe the same things clearly can't exist. Since your
assumption is a necessary part of your belief in god, it's simply
begging the question, and not the default at all.
I could equally well say that a necessary property of a god,
if one really existed, is that he would cause all religious
people to know for certain and agree completely on all the
details, and therefore that any disagreement on details is
cast-iron proof that no gods exist. Who's to say that you're
right and I'm wrong?
If you did say that then *you'd* be the one to say you were
right--I'd
be the one to say you were wrong. If your question is how our
disagreement can be objectively settled, I'd say we could
compare it to reality and you'd see I was right:-)
And how would we do that, exactly? :-) How would we objectively
settle the issue of whether or not a god (if one existed) would
cause everyone's religious beliefs to be exactly the same?
In a fair
discussion, we can't allow you to make up rules for what is
consistent with the existence of a god, and then say that lo
and behold, the world appears to follow the rules - You have
to justify the rules. Can you? Can you prove that
disagreement on religious matters *is* a possible property of
a universe with a god?
I don't think I *can* prove it, but I don't think you can
prove it isn't possible.
I'd certainly agree with that. So I'd say that if you are
claiming the existence of a god, and claiming a certain property
for him (that he wouldn't cause everyone to hold the same
religious beliefs), then it's up to you to prove it, otherwise
the most reasonable default position is to assume that no such
thing exists.
I agree that given the assumption that
disagreement is
impossible if God exists, then the fact that people do
disagree would
entail the non-existence of God, which would entail that
nobody had
noticed that God was around. In that case, my claim that God
is around
would be false.
But my observation that
the vast
majority of humans are theists does indeed help my rebuttal
of the
claim that "the majority of the people of the world also
didn't notice [that God wasn't around].
Not if disagreement disproves the existence of gods, as I
explained above.
You are quite correct about that.
(snip)
and we *know* that humans are
very good at inventing all sorts of fantasy characters, both
realistic and supernatural. Even I can do it. That
explanation for the existence of the idea of gods only
depends on what we already know about the universe, whereas
your explanation (that the idea exists because a god really
exists) relies on something unproven. The 'gods are just a
human fantasy' explanation fits known facts, whereas the
'gods are real' answer doesn't. Seems to me that makes
atheism the rational choice (unless and until someone comes
up with something that the 'gods are just a human fantasy'
explanation can't account for).
But the "we are easily fooled..." (alleged) explanation can
account
for *everything*! We are easily fooled, so why believe we are
right
about astronomy or biology? We are easily fooled, so why
believe that
our brains have helped us survive? I owuld say it would be
positively *irrational* to take the "we're easily fooled so
seriously as I
described above, and I see no rational reason why theistic
belief
ought to be treated differently from the kinds of things I
just mentioned.
If we have wrong ideas about astronomy or biology, then they
can be challenged with reason and objective evidence - We see
those things as valid and justified ways of arriving at the
truth...
But the "we are easily fooled" could be account for *that* as
well; if
I reasoned the way you suggested I should wrt my religious
beliefs,
why should I believe any of our conclusions drawn from what we
believe
to be evidence? The fact is, you know that reason and evidence
are
ways to advance our knowledge because you have an accurate
intuition
to that effect
Well no, I don't think it's anything to do with intuition. We
regard reason and evidence as valid routes to objective truth
*because they demonstrably work*. We have thousands of years of
practical experience which show exactly that. If it were
otherwise, we wouldn't have robot geologists roaming around on
Mars and sending back data, or CAT scanners, or mobile phones, or
anything like that. Science and technology rely on reason and
evidence, and confirm the validity of these principles a thousand
times a day. Where's the equivalent wealth of confirmation for
the basis of theistic belief? There doesn't seem to be any. I'm
not aware of *any* objective verification that faith is a route
to truth at all.
--you can't use reason to show that reason is valid
because that would be circular reasoning and thus invalid.
True, but we know it's valid because of our experience.
see you
keith
(snip)
In the same same way,
if we're wrong about the non-existence of gods, then that can
be challenged with reason or evidence. All you have to do is
provide some fact or argument which is unarguably
inconsistent with there being no gods. Can you? Until you
or someone else can, atheism is the only rational view
because it doesn't rely on something that's not in evidence.
Theism does.
It would have been nice to see you answer this bit :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "keith" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
23 Sep 2004 05:58:29 PM |
|
|
"Icarus" <icarus_uk@email.com> wrote in message news:<2rg326F1a6vsvU1@uni-berlin.de>...
keith wrote:
...
Your comment (that
disagreeing on the details of religion is consistent with the
existence of a god) relies on *your* implicit assumption that
a god wouldn't necessarily cause everyone to agree on the
details. How do we know this to be true? Only on your
say-so, it seems.
Well, I'm sure you shouldn't accept it on my say-so:-)
But...my claim is that God wouldn't *necessarily* cause
everyone to
agree on the details, which seems like a rather weaker claim
that the
contrary claimthat God would NECESSARILY cause everyone to
agree on
the details. It seems to me that in general cases "not
necessarily" is
the default.
I don't see why. I don't see that you have any verifiable
argument or evidence to claim that a god wouldn't necessarily
cause everyone to agree on the details, so it's just your
assumption - In fact, it's an assumption that you must
*necessarily* make, given that people *do* disagree on the
details, because if you don't make that assumption then you
necessarily have to give up your belief in god. A god who makes
everyone believe the same things clearly can't exist. Since your
assumption is a necessary part of your belief in god, it's simply
begging the question, and not the default at all.
A few points:
1. I agree that if God would necessarily prevent religious
disagreement then the existence of religious disagreement would entail
the non-existence of God.
2. But that isn't the reason I think that it's not necessarily true
that God would prevent religious disagreement. My reason is that
"necessarily true" is a very strong claim. To say that something is
necessarily true is to say that under *all* circumstances the
something is true; if I can't see that there are no circumstances
where the something is true, it seems to me that I cannot eliminate
the *possibility*. In other words, "not necessarily" seems like the
default in any claim, so long as you don't have sufficient reason to
think that the thing is necessarily so. This is true (I'd say)
regardless of whether or not God exists and thus I am not begging any
questions.
I could equally well say that a necessary property of a god,
if one really existed, is that he would cause all religious
people to know for certain and agree completely on all the
details, and therefore that any disagreement on details is
cast-iron proof that no gods exist. Who's to say that you're
right and I'm wrong?
If you did say that then *you'd* be the one to say you were
right--I'd
be the one to say you were wrong. If your question is how our
disagreement can be objectively settled, I'd say we could
compare it to reality and you'd see I was right:-)
And how would we do that, exactly? :-) How would we objectively
settle the issue of whether or not a god (if one existed) would
cause everyone's religious beliefs to be exactly the same?
What you must be asking is: what procedure could you and I endure(:-)
that would allow us to settle our dispute accurately. I can't think of
a thing. Except maybe this: after we die and are face to face with
God, we could ask him:-) Otherwise, I really can't think of an
objective test to settle our intuitive differences.
In a fair
discussion, we can't allow you to make up rules for what is
consistent with the existence of a god, and then say that lo
and behold, the world appears to follow the rules - You have
to justify the rules. Can you? Can you prove that
disagreement on religious matters *is* a possible property of
a universe with a god?
I don't think I *can* prove it, but I don't think you can
prove it isn't possible.
I'd certainly agree with that. So I'd say that if you are
claiming the existence of a god, and claiming a certain property
for him (that he wouldn't cause everyone to hold the same
religious beliefs), then it's up to you to prove it, otherwise
the most reasonable default position is to assume that no such
thing exists.
I don't see how reason compels such a default position. It seems to me
that absent any reason to think otherwise, the appropriate default
would be "maybe".
(snip)
If we have wrong ideas about astronomy or biology, then they
can be challenged with reason and objective evidence - We see
those things as valid and justified ways of arriving at the
truth...
But the "we are easily fooled" could be account for *that* as
well; if
I reasoned the way you suggested I should wrt my religious
beliefs,
why should I believe any of our conclusions drawn from what we
believe
to be evidence? The fact is, you know that reason and evidence
are
ways to advance our knowledge because you have an accurate
intuition
to that effect
Well no, I don't think it's anything to do with intuition. We
regard reason and evidence as valid routes to objective truth
*because they demonstrably work*. We have thousands of years of
practical experience which show exactly that.
If it were
otherwise, we wouldn't have robot geologists roaming around on
Mars and sending back data, or CAT scanners, or mobile phones, or
anything like that.
Here you seem to be saying that we can infer from the evidence that
reason and evidence are valid ways to the truth. But that is blatantly
circular reasoning--if the utility of reason is the thing in question
you can't assume that what it gives you is accurate. I see that you
concede the circularity below, but your argument seems to me to depend
on that circularity.
Science and technology rely on reason and
evidence, and confirm the validity of these principles a thousand
times a day. Where's the equivalent wealth of confirmation for
the basis of theistic belief? There doesn't seem to be any. I'm
not aware of *any* objective verification that faith is a route
to truth at all.
I'd say you are comparing the building to the ground that holds it up
(what a metaphor:-). Science rests on the foundation of reason and
evidence, but since it is circular reasoning to *use* reason/evidence
to show that reason/evidence is a guide to truth. If it's valid to
test Reason by reasoning, then I would say that is no different than
trusting Faith by "faithing".
--you can't use reason to show that reason is valid
because that would be circular reasoning and thus invalid.
True, but we know it's valid because of our experience.
I know that my religious belief is true because of *my* experience:-)
Seriously , I don't see the difference is relevant.
Keith
see you
keith
(snip)
In the same same way,
if we're wrong about the non-existence of gods, then that can
be challenged with reason or evidence. All you have to do is
provide some fact or argument which is unarguably
inconsistent with there being no gods. Can you? Until you
or someone else can, atheism is the only rational view
because it doesn't rely on something that's not in evidence.
Theism does.
It would have been nice to see you answer this bit :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Icarus" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
23 Sep 2004 08:08:46 PM |
|
|
keith wrote:
"Icarus" <icarus_uk@email.com> wrote in message
news:<2rg326F1a6vsvU1@uni-berlin.de>...
keith wrote:
...
Your comment (that
disagreeing on the details of religion is consistent with
the existence of a god) relies on *your* implicit
assumption that a god wouldn't necessarily cause everyone
to agree on the details. How do we know this to be true?
Only on your say-so, it seems.
Well, I'm sure you shouldn't accept it on my say-so:-)
But...my claim is that God wouldn't *necessarily* cause
everyone to
agree on the details, which seems like a rather weaker claim
that the
contrary claimthat God would NECESSARILY cause everyone to
agree on
the details. It seems to me that in general cases "not
necessarily" is
the default.
I don't see why. I don't see that you have any verifiable
argument or evidence to claim that a god wouldn't necessarily
cause everyone to agree on the details, so it's just your
assumption - In fact, it's an assumption that you must
*necessarily* make, given that people *do* disagree on the
details, because if you don't make that assumption then you
necessarily have to give up your belief in god. A god who
makes everyone believe the same things clearly can't exist.
Since your assumption is a necessary part of your belief in
god, it's simply begging the question, and not the default at
all.
A few points:
1. I agree that if God would necessarily prevent religious
disagreement then the existence of religious disagreement
would entail the non-existence of God.
2. But that isn't the reason I think that it's not
necessarily true
that God would prevent religious disagreement. My reason is
that "necessarily true" is a very strong claim. To say that
something is
necessarily true is to say that under *all* circumstances the
something is true; if I can't see that there are no
circumstances
where the something is true, it seems to me that I cannot
eliminate
the *possibility*. In other words, "not necessarily" seems
like the
default in any claim, so long as you don't have sufficient
reason to
think that the thing is necessarily so. This is true (I'd say)
regardless of whether or not God exists and thus I am not
begging any
questions.
The only thing you could say about it, that doesn't constitute making
a claim, is that you just *don't know* whether a god would cause
religious agreement or not... but that's not what you said. You made
the positive claim that disagreement on religious issues IS consistent
with the existence of a god. To make that claim entails making a
claim about a property of god - i.e. that it's definitely NOT true
that a god would cause everyone to believe the same things. That's
begging the question (you can't base an argument on an unsupported
assertion about a god when it's the existence and properties of a god
that are in dispute).
So, given that religious disagreement definitely exists, let's compare
the two sides of this argument:
Your assertion (that religious disagreement is consistent with the
existence of a god) entails making a positive claim about a property
of a god. The existence and properties of a god are what we're
disputing.
The assertion that religious disagreement is consistent with the
non-existence of gods relies only on the unarguable observation that
people do disagree over things regardless of whether they are
factually true or not (we have plenty of examples of both).
Hence your position is the one that requires support, whereas the
contrary position does not (it only relies on what we already know,
not on something we don't know).
What it comes down to is this: If you want to claim that religious
disagreement is consistent with the existence of a god, then you have
to prove it. It's not up to anyone else to accept your claim without
proof, nor can it be regarded as the default position.
I could equally well say that a necessary property of a god,
if one really existed, is that he would cause all religious
people to know for certain and agree completely on all the
details, and therefore that any disagreement on details is
cast-iron proof that no gods exist. Who's to say that
you're right and I'm wrong?
If you did say that then *you'd* be the one to say you were
right--I'd
be the one to say you were wrong. If your question is how our
disagreement can be objectively settled, I'd say we could
compare it to reality and you'd see I was right:-)
And how would we do that, exactly? :-) How would we
objectively settle the issue of whether or not a god (if one
existed) would cause everyone's religious beliefs to be
exactly the same?
What you must be asking is: what procedure could you and I
endure(:-)
that would allow us to settle our dispute accurately. I can't
think of
a thing.
Nor can I :-) That's why I was wondering why you said "we could
compare it to reality and you'd see I was right". I was wondering
what that would entail... but apparently now you can't think of any
way of doing it.
Except maybe this: after we die and are face to face
with
God, we could ask him:-)
Ah well that would indeed solve a lot of issues, wouldn't it? :-)
Otherwise, I really can't think of an
objective test to settle our intuitive differences.
OK then. Does that mean you're prepared to withdraw your assertion
that disagreement on religious issues definitely IS consistent with
the existence of a god, and concede that you can only justifiably say
"I don't know"?
In a fair
discussion, we can't allow you to make up rules for what is
consistent with the existence of a god, and then say that lo
and behold, the world appears to follow the rules - You have
to justify the rules. Can you? Can you prove that
disagreement on religious matters *is* a possible property
of a universe with a god?
I don't think I *can* prove it, but I don't think you can
prove it isn't possible.
I'd certainly agree with that. So I'd say that if you are
claiming the existence of a god, and claiming a certain
property for him (that he wouldn't cause everyone to hold the
same religious beliefs), then it's up to you to prove it,
otherwise the most reasonable default position is to assume
that no such thing exists.
I don't see how reason compels such a default position. It
seems to me
that absent any reason to think otherwise, the appropriate
default
would be "maybe".
"Maybe" or "I don't know" would be fine with me. Is that now your
position on the matter? ;-)
If we have wrong ideas about astronomy or biology, then they
can be challenged with reason and objective evidence - We
see those things as valid and justified ways of arriving at
the truth...
But the "we are easily fooled" could be account for *that* as
well; if
I reasoned the way you suggested I should wrt my religious
beliefs,
why should I believe any of our conclusions drawn from what
we believe
to be evidence? The fact is, you know that reason and
evidence are
ways to advance our knowledge because you have an accurate
intuition
to that effect
Well no, I don't think it's anything to do with intuition. We
regard reason and evidence as valid routes to objective truth
*because they demonstrably work*. We have thousands of years
of practical experience which show exactly that. If it were
otherwise, we wouldn't have robot geologists roaming around on
Mars and sending back data, or CAT scanners, or mobile
phones, or anything like that.
Here you seem to be saying that we can infer from the evidence
that
reason and evidence are valid ways to the truth. But that is
blatantly
circular reasoning--if the utility of reason is the thing in
question
you can't assume that what it gives you is accurate. I see
that you
concede the circularity below, but your argument seems to me
to depend
on that circularity.
No, that's not an accurate analysis of what I'm saying. I'm saying
that (for example) we use reason and objective evidence to conclude
that there is a planet out there (Mars), how far away it is, its orbit
and position and so on, and then when we use those conclusions to
guide a spacecraft there, and we see that it arrives safely and sends
back pictures. Surely that experience indicates that reason and
evidence really are guiding us towards objective truth? When that
kind of confirmation happens a million times over, I think we're
justified in accepting that reason and evidence really *are* a
reliable route to objective truth. I don't think I can accept that
you can just call that experience 'evidence', and then say that the
argument in favour of reason and evidence is therefore circular.
Seeing the pictures we expect to get feels like more than just
'evidence'.
Science and technology rely on reason and
evidence, and confirm the validity of these principles a
thousand times a day. Where's the equivalent wealth of
confirmation for the basis of theistic belief? There doesn't
seem to be any. I'm not aware of *any* objective
verification that faith is a route to truth at all.
I'd say you are comparing the building to the ground that
holds it up (what a metaphor:-). Science rests on the
foundation of reason and
evidence, but since it is circular reasoning to *use*
reason/evidence
to show that reason/evidence is a guide to truth. If it's
valid to
test Reason by reasoning, then I would say that is no
different than
trusting Faith by "faithing".
Err.. only if your faith is confirmed by experience, in the same way
that the reliance on reason and evidence are.
--you can't use reason to show that reason is valid
because that would be circular reasoning and thus invalid.
True, but we know it's valid because of our experience.
I know that my religious belief is true because of *my*
experience:-)
Seriously , I don't see the difference is relevant.
Do you really have experience of your religious beliefs being true
though? Even if you think you do, it's not the same as having the
shared experience of seeing pictures of rocks on Mars. It seems to me
that an experience that we can all share, and all agree on is more
convincing than something you claim is going on in your head, that I
can't possibly know anything about.
In the same same way,
if we're wrong about the non-existence of gods, then that
can be challenged with reason or evidence. All you have to
do is provide some fact or argument which is unarguably
inconsistent with there being no gods. Can you? Until you
or someone else can, atheism is the only rational view
because it doesn't rely on something that's not in evidence.
Theism does.
It would have been nice to see you answer this bit :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "keith" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
24 Sep 2004 09:13:05 AM |
|
|
""Icarus" <icarus_uk@email.com> wrote in message news:<2rhb0uF19u95qU2@uni-berlin.de>...
keith wrote:
"Icarus" <icarus_uk@email.com> wrote in message
news:<2rg326F1a6vsvU1@uni-berlin.de>...
keith wrote:
...
(snip)
Well, I'm sure you shouldn't accept it on my say-so:-)
But...my claim is that God wouldn't *necessarily* cause
everyone to
agree on the details, which seems like a rather weaker claim
that the
contrary claimthat God would NECESSARILY cause everyone to
agree on
the details. It seems to me that in general cases "not
necessarily" is
the default.
I don't see why. I don't see that you have any verifiable
argument or evidence to claim that a god wouldn't necessarily
cause everyone to agree on the details, so it's just your
assumption - In fact, it's an assumption that you must
*necessarily* make, given that people *do* disagree on the
details, because if you don't make that assumption then you
necessarily have to give up your belief in god. A god who
makes everyone believe the same things clearly can't exist.
Since your assumption is a necessary part of your belief in
god, it's simply begging the question, and not the default at
all.
A few points:
1. I agree that if God would necessarily prevent religious
disagreement then the existence of religious disagreement
would entail the non-existence of God.
2. But that isn't the reason I think that it's not
necessarily true
that God would prevent religious disagreement. My reason is
that "necessarily true" is a very strong claim. To say that
something is
necessarily true is to say that under *all* circumstances the
something is true; if I can't see that there are no
circumstances
where the something is true, it seems to me that I cannot
eliminate
the *possibility*. In other words, "not necessarily" seems
like the
default in any claim, so long as you don't have sufficient
reason to
think that the thing is necessarily so. This is true (I'd say)
regardless of whether or not God exists and thus I am not
begging any
questions.
The only thing you could say about it, that doesn't constitute making
a claim, is that you just *don't know* whether a god would cause
religious agreement or not... but that's not what you said. You made
the positive claim that disagreement on religious issues IS consistent
with the existence of a god.
Since the issue we are talking about in the above paragraph is "what
makes things plausible", I'm not mentioning God. I think you raise a
good point. It's a necessary truth that you can't find a rational
number that is equal to PI, but before you know that fact you cannot
dismiss the possibility that you could find one. In other words, the
fact that you cannot dismiss the possibility (because you don't know)
doesn't mean there actually *is* a possibility. The thing is:
"possibility" can be construed in lots of ways. I was thinking of
"epistemic possibility"--the "for all we know" possibility when I made
my argument.
To make that claim entails making a
claim about a property of god - i.e. that it's definitely NOT true
that a god would cause everyone to believe the same things. That's
begging the question (you can't base an argument on an unsupported
assertion about a god when it's the existence and properties of a god
that are in dispute)
You are right, except that I *can* base an argument on an unsuported
assertion--such assertions are called "premises:-) But really, you are
right about my argument--I should have been clearer about which sense
of possibility I was using.
So, given that religious disagreement definitely exists, let's compare
the two sides of this argument:
Your assertion (that religious disagreement is consistent with the
existence of a god) entails making a positive claim about a property
of a god. The existence and properties of a god are what we're
disputing.
The assertion that religious disagreement is consistent with the
non-existence of gods relies only on the unarguable observation that
people do disagree over things regardless of whether they are
factually true or not (we have plenty of examples of both).
Hence your position is the one that requires support, whereas the
contrary position does not (it only relies on what we already know,
not on something we don't know).
What it comes down to is this: If you want to claim that religious
disagreement is consistent with the existence of a god, then you have
to prove it. It's not up to anyone else to accept your claim without
proof, nor can it be regarded as the default position.
I ask permission to revise my remarks: I would claim that you haven't
given any reason to suppose that God would necessarily prevent
religious disagreement. As I stated things above, your criticism is on
target.
I could equally well say that a necessary property of a god,
if one really existed, is that he would cause all religious
people to know for certain and agree completely on all the
details, and therefore that any disagreement on details is
cast-iron proof that no gods exist. Who's to say that
you're right and I'm wrong?
If you did say that then *you'd* be the one to say you were
right--I'd
be the one to say you were wrong. If your question is how our
disagreement can be objectively settled, I'd say we could
compare it to reality and you'd see I was right:-)
And how would we do that, exactly? :-) How would we
objectively settle the issue of whether or not a god (if one
existed) would cause everyone's religious beliefs to be
exactly the same?
What you must be asking is: what procedure could you and I
endure(:-)
that would allow us to settle our dispute accurately. I can't
think of
a thing.
Nor can I :-) That's why I was wondering why you said "we could
compare it to reality and you'd see I was right". I was wondering
what that would entail... but apparently now you can't think of any
way of doing it.
I was kind of kidding--see the ":-)". But seriously, I'd say that
everything we know comes to us subjectively--we know nothing that
didn't come to us by some sort pof personal experience and personal
experiences are subjective. Thus it must be posisble--if any degree of
knowledge is possible--to gain knowledge via subjective means. I would
claim that knowledge of God can come that way.
Except maybe this: after we die and are face to face
with
God, we could ask him:-)
Ah well that would indeed solve a lot of issues, wouldn't it? :-)
Otherwise, I really can't think of an
objective test to settle our intuitive differences.
OK then. Does that mean you're prepared to withdraw your assertion
that disagreement on religious issues definitely IS consistent with
the existence of a god, and concede that you can only justifiably say
"I don't know"?
yes, although I wouldn't phrase is quite like that:-) I;d say "*you*
don't know":-) And I'd say that my knowing that God exists is reason
for *me* to believe that his existence is consistent with religious
disageement--but I can't use that in a debate with a skeptic.
In a fair
discussion, we can't allow you to make up rules for what is
consistent with the existence of a god, and then say that lo
and behold, the world appears to follow the rules - You have
to justify the rules. Can you? Can you prove that
disagreement on religious matters *is* a possible property
of a universe with a god?
I don't think I *can* prove it, but I don't think you can
prove it isn't possible.
I'd certainly agree with that. So I'd say that if you are
claiming the existence of a god, and claiming a certain
property for him (that he wouldn't cause everyone to hold the
same religious beliefs), then it's up to you to prove it,
otherwise the most reasonable default position is to assume
that no such thing exists.
I don't see how reason compels such a default position. It
seems to me
that absent any reason to think otherwise, the appropriate
default
would be "maybe".
"Maybe" or "I don't know" would be fine with me. Is that now your
position on the matter? ;-)
Addressed above. But my point was that since it's "maybe" for you,
religious disagreement doesn't give *you* a reason to disbelieve in
God. Now if you claim that it's *not* "maybe" for you...
If we have wrong ideas about astronomy or biology, then they
can be challenged with reason and objective evidence - We
see those things as valid and justified ways of arriving at
the truth...
But the "we are easily fooled" could be account for *that* as
well; if
I reasoned the way you suggested I should wrt my religious
beliefs,
why should I believe any of our conclusions drawn from what
we believe
to be evidence? The fact is, you know that reason and
evidence are
ways to advance our knowledge because you have an accurate
intuition
to that effect
Well no, I don't think it's anything to do with intuition. We
regard reason and evidence as valid routes to objective truth
*because they demonstrably work*. We have thousands of years
of practical experience which show exactly that. If it were
otherwise, we wouldn't have robot geologists roaming around on
Mars and sending back data, or CAT scanners, or mobile
phones, or anything like that.
Here you seem to be saying that we can infer from the evidence
that
reason and evidence are valid ways to the truth. But that is
blatantly
circular reasoning--if the utility of reason is the thing in
question
you can't assume that what it gives you is accurate. I see
that you
concede the circularity below, but your argument seems to me
to depend
on that circularity.
No, that's not an accurate analysis of what I'm saying. I'm saying
that (for example) we use reason and objective evidence to conclude
that there is a planet out there (Mars), how far away it is, its orbit
and position and so on, and then when we use those conclusions to
guide a spacecraft there, and we see that it arrives safely and sends
back pictures.
But if it didn't arrive safely, that would only falsify the theory we
used to predict where it would be--it wouldn't falsify the process of
using reason/evidence. Whatever the result, the process of using
reason/evidence would not be discredited. But that's a double-edged
sword, since that means the process can't be verified either.
Surely that experience indicates that reason and
evidence really are guiding us towards objective truth? When that
kind of confirmation happens a million times over, I think we're
justified in accepting that reason and evidence really *are* a
reliable route to objective truth. I don't think I can accept that
you can just call that experience 'evidence', and then say that the
argument in favour of reason and evidence is therefore circular.
Seeing the pictures we expect to get feels like more than just
'evidence'.
Continuing with my above: suppose the above successes had failed
instead of succeeded, and suppose we then concluded that using
reason/evidence doesn't bring us any knowledge. We would be wrong to
come to that conclusion since we *drew* that conclusion by using
reason and the evidence of failure--we trusted the very process we
"proved" wasn't trustworthy. No matter how successful or unsuccessful
our above endeavors were, reason remains unscathed, which means our
successes cannot be evidence *for* the reliability of using
reason/evidence.
Science and technology rely on reason and
evidence, and confirm the validity of these principles a
thousand times a day. Where's the equivalent wealth of
confirmation for the basis of theistic belief? There doesn't
seem to be any. I'm not aware of *any* objective
verification that faith is a route to truth at all.
I'd say you are comparing the building to the ground that
holds it up (what a metaphor:-). Science rests on the
foundation of reason and
evidence, but since it is circular reasoning to *use*
reason/evidence
to show that reason/evidence is a guide to truth. If it's
valid to
test Reason by reasoning, then I would say that is no
different than
trusting Faith by "faithing".
Err.. only if your faith is confirmed by experience, in the same way
that the reliance on reason and evidence are.
I would say that trusting "confirmation by experience" is using
evidence/reason to test evidence/reason. I see now reason why
evidence/reason has the auhtority to test itself, while faith must be
tested by a different faculty. Or alternatively: I could say that my
faith is confirmed by my experience of faith:-)
--you can't use reason to show that reason is valid
because that would be circular reasoning and thus invalid.
True, but we know it's valid because of our experience.
I know that my religious belief is true because of *my*
experience:-)
Seriously , I don't see the difference is relevant.
Do you really have experience of your religious beliefs being true
though?
Yes, in that when I reflect on my religious beliefs they have the same
kind of ring of truth I get when I reflect on things like mathematical
truth or like when I look at my computer and notice it really is here.
Even if you think you do, it's not the same as having the
shared experience of seeing pictures of rocks on Mars.
I agree with you there.
It seems to me
that an experience that we can all share, and all agree on is more
convincing than something you claim is going on in your head, that I
can't possibly know anything about.
Convincing to who?
In the same same way,
if we're wrong about the non-existence of gods, then that
can be challenged with reason or evidence. All you have to
do is provide some fact or argument which is unarguably
inconsistent with there being no gods. Can you? Until you
or someone else can, atheism is the only rational view
because it doesn't rely on something that's not in evidence.
Theism does.
It would have been nice to see you answer this bit :-)
I don't agree that my inability to give you something that makes it
impossible for you to fail to believe that God exists implies that
atheism is the only rational view. There's a bit of an answer:-)
Keith
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
16 Sep 2004 01:04:31 PM |
|
|
keith wrote:
Jez <iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message news:<41489c49$0$20251$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>...
keith wrote:
Jez <iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message news:<41473c45$0$20252$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>...
(snip)
Nope, God does exist and my belief is not a crutch for my fears.
Where is this God fella then ?
He's around.
Where ? why doesn't he show himself then ? Is he that gutless a coward ?
Too afraid to face us, and be punished for the filth he has allowed ?
God has shown himself, you didn't notice?
You can't notice something that doesn't exist.
And why shoukd God be
punished? It 's human beings who created the filth, God did something
about it on the cross.
Nope....God didn't do anything...anywhere...ever.
Doesn't seem to have much use, | |
