Thank you for the compliments and the response. I'm glad to come off as coherent, often I worry I'm out of my league in some topics. I also don't think I'm particularly known for my brevity so I have lots of thoughts for you - but right now I have 15lbs of potatoes to turn into latkes. I'll try to carve out time tomorrow.
How did God begin?
11,532 Views |
143 Replies |
Last: 10 mo ago by Rudyjax
Same here! LOL.Quote:
often I worry I'm out of my league in some topics
You're definitely not out of your league here, unless you're in the majors and the rest of us are in the minors, if even that.
Take care!
I think only people who understand string theory can explain this one.
So how exactly did God "create" everything out of nothing?Andrew Dufresne said:schmendeler said:
I don't know. But it seems like you may already have some opinions formed yourself.
I just don't understand Atheists. You think the idea of a creator is outlandish. You think everything just randomly happened out of nowhere, which I think is outlandish.
I don't necessarily believe in a Christian God btw. I just believe in a creator of some sort. It blows my mind to try and imagine this creator beginning.
For what little of theology I understand (mostly catholic FWIW), the supposition is that God has no beginning, Divine Simplicity, He is "the act of pure being" unmodifiable, pure existence.
I struggle as the poster above who says, ok, so what does that mean? I don't really know either. But we have a somewhat intelligible universe with patterns, norms, causes and effects. We have transcendent good things, truth, beauty, love. We have pure abstractions that are nevertheless true like numbers and math that help us explain the rest of what we think we know. So yeah, we can't understand why we have something instead of nothing. That prime mover flummoxed Aristotle, so I don't think I'll do it justice, but culturally, man has been searching for it and calling it God.
The rest of the details have been filled in by revelation, and I can't rationalize why you should believe one versus the other, but the Christian story ended up being a pretty compelling one for what would otherwise be the idea of 11 nobodies that started it and thousands more that died for it before much of anyone thought they were anything but a civil nuisance. Add to that the ancient tribe of the Hebrews that are still around in a way that virtually none of Abraham's "peer" cultural/religious tribes are, nor have been for thousands of years.
Maybe it is just cosmic happenstance of colliding subatomic matter, I can't prove otherwise, but that seems less compelling than there being something to this whole thing beyond offering an explanation for things we haven't been able to explain one more step.
I struggle as the poster above who says, ok, so what does that mean? I don't really know either. But we have a somewhat intelligible universe with patterns, norms, causes and effects. We have transcendent good things, truth, beauty, love. We have pure abstractions that are nevertheless true like numbers and math that help us explain the rest of what we think we know. So yeah, we can't understand why we have something instead of nothing. That prime mover flummoxed Aristotle, so I don't think I'll do it justice, but culturally, man has been searching for it and calling it God.
The rest of the details have been filled in by revelation, and I can't rationalize why you should believe one versus the other, but the Christian story ended up being a pretty compelling one for what would otherwise be the idea of 11 nobodies that started it and thousands more that died for it before much of anyone thought they were anything but a civil nuisance. Add to that the ancient tribe of the Hebrews that are still around in a way that virtually none of Abraham's "peer" cultural/religious tribes are, nor have been for thousands of years.
Maybe it is just cosmic happenstance of colliding subatomic matter, I can't prove otherwise, but that seems less compelling than there being something to this whole thing beyond offering an explanation for things we haven't been able to explain one more step.
By definition, God has no beginning and no end -just IS.
Saw a lecture at A&M (Stephen Hawking) on the Origin of the Universe during a parents weekend. He said(if i remember correctly) that the big bang theory did not concern itself with what happened before it.
https://physics.tamu.edu/stephen-hawking-draws-crowds-spotlight-to-texas-am-physics/
https://physics.tamu.edu/stephen-hawking-draws-crowds-spotlight-to-texas-am-physics/
Ha ha, of course not, because Hawking et al have no satisfactory answers, explanations, or even workable theories as to what happened before the big bang. So they draw arbitrary lines in their materialistic explanations and say that anything across those lines simply doesn't matter.Ferg said:
Saw a lecture at A&M (Stephen Hawking) on the Origin of the Universe during a parents weekend. He said(if i remember correctly) that the big bang theory did not concern itself with what happened before it.
https://physics.tamu.edu/stephen-hawking-draws-crowds-spotlight-to-texas-am-physics/
Origin of life is a similar arbitrary line. No one has any workable theory how the first cell, complete with DNA, RNA, a membrane, and all of the thousands or even millions of internal working parts could have just popped into existence from purely natural processes. So evolutionary apologists simply say "that's different" than evolution and largely ignore it.
Science has proven that the universe had a beginning.
It takes more faith to believe that Nothing created this amazing universe than God.
It takes more faith to believe that Nothing created this amazing universe than God.
Is that actually correct that science has "proven" that the universe had a beginning? It's my impression that the Big Bang is a theory, and a theory coming under increasing criticism from many secular scientists. Much of the data we're observing doesn't line up with a big bang theory.aggiedata said:
Science has proven that the universe had a beginning.
And I say that as a Christian who believes fundamentally that God created the universe. I'm just wary of relying on the latest theory as support for Christian beliefs. The theories change all of the time, but God's truth and Word does not.
God created the laws of Physics, Math, electricity etc, All Man had done is discover those laws.aggiedata said:
Science has proven that the universe had a beginning.
It takes more faith to believe that Nothing created this amazing universe than God.
aggiedata said:
Science has proven that the universe had a beginning.
It takes more faith to believe that Nothing created this amazing universe than God.
I think you have a poor understanding of what faith means, then.
Quote:
However, there seems to be at least two errors in your overall approach. First, there is no absolute argument or evidence for anything in life. I can neither prove to you or even myself that the chair I'm sitting in exists. However, it is unreasonable for me to deny its existence for any number or reasons. The title of McDowell's magnus opus, "Evidence that Demands a Verdict", captures this point very well. We cannot expect "proof" of anything. Rather, like the court system, we should base our conclusions on the weight of the evidence. The evidence for God is similarly so abundant that it is unreasonable to deny it even though we are incapable of proving his existence.
On the question of what is knowable, I think I would fall on the same side as you saying that nothing is absolutely knowable.
The comment I struggle most with from above is the last sentence about the abundance of evidence for God. There are of course different forms of evidence. One of the things I've learned from this board is that we all weigh these different forms of evidence differently. There are fundamental differences between worldviews and presuppositions from person to person and it creates scenarios where we each look at a question and believe that our conclusion is the abundantly obvious one.
What are the evidences that most appeal to you?
For me, personally, I find value in some of the typical arguments like the first cause argument and the anthropic principle arguments. But, in the end, I always find it hard to fully justify either the premises or leaps to 'therefore God' that comes with most of the arguments for God. The Cosmological argument usually starts with statements that anything that begins has a cause and the universe began to exist - both of which are problematic. I think we are claiming an unjustifiably deep understanding of reality right off the bat to make the massive claim that follows. The teleological and anthropic arguments are interesting, but they require us to ignore the possibility that we lack the creativity or intelligence by simply jumping to 'therefore God'. In my opinion, the most compelling arguments for God still take the form of "We cannot fathom any other answer to this question, therefore it must be God."
The premises and jumps and conclusions of many of these arguments may feel clear as day to you, but they feel completely murky to me. And I think its because we have different starting points we use when evaluating arguments like this.
The next thing I would say is that the typical arguments and evidences for the necessity of God, generally fail to define God. "God" is simply the thing that satisfies the equation for first cause, and fine tuning, and complexity, etc. In which case, God could be just about anything. A super intelligent alien software engineer that designed a simulation and stuck us in it meets the definition. Without a clear definition, I feel that these arguments amount to advocating for the existence of 'something' in terms too broad to be useful.
Quote:
Second, you ignore the compounding power of thevidence and arguments. Let's say, by way of hypothetical, that there are 5 arguments for the existence of God. You go through each one and show how each has weaknesses. You, in effect, show that each argument has only a 70% chance of being correct, and that simply isn't powerful enough for you.
However, it seems to me, that you ignore the fact that all 5 arguments must be false for there to be no God. If any one is correct, then there is a God. Using elementary statistics (which even at that level is way over my head), then there's actually a 99.8% chance that God exists (1 minus 30% to the 5th power).
How do we go about assigning likelihoods to any of these arguments? How can we go from a question about the fine tuning of the universe and say "Well, there is a 70% chance it was a God"? Its not as though we have a collection of existences, natural and supernatural, and can say that 70% of them were created by a God of some form. One might use their own intuition or their own bias to come up with probabilities, but I don't think that is reliable.
Quote:
I hesitate to use statistics to prove the existence of God. Rather, my use here is simply to illustrate the power of all of the evidences and arguments for God in the aggregate. And, on the other side, there do not seem to be many arguments or evidences against the existence of God. Instead, the arguments, on this board at least, seem to be simply "we can't know".
We can know, do know, and the evidence is everywhere around us.
Proving a negative is always challenge. And its especially difficult (and I would argue impossible) to prove it in this case, where the subject of the claim has a potentially limitless amount of power. For any evidence that could be presented that might argue against the existence of God - a counter argument that God is infinitely powerful and can overcome that argument is always waiting. A couple hundred years ago, we could not fathom human beings being anything other than the product of design by a Creator. As arguments against that claim gained traction, the Creator slid into the roll of guiding our design through evolution or as the spark that created life billions of years ago. There is literally no argument for a natural origin of humans that could not be countered with "God not only made that possible, but it was his intention".
In other words, to provide a counter argument against the existence or actions of an infinitely powerful being must be, by definition, an impossible task. This is just a result of our definitions of God. God will always be more powerful and more magical than any argument against.
I know that you've said (after the post I'm responding to) that you are only arguing for the existence of God and not for a particular God. And, to be totally honest, I don't discount the possibility of existence of something far beyond my understanding that played a role in existence that I will likely never understand. The problem with this absolutely minimum base level agnostic deism, is that there is nothing practical about it. The existence of 'something' might be interesting, but it doesn't tell me how to live my life, anything about morality, or anything about purpose. Once the belief becomes fleshed out and we assign purpose and values and meaning to God's intent, then we have something practical. And at that point, we also have the ability to provide more effective counter arguments against. If the God you believe in, created human beings, then there is now a claim that is concrete enough for us to evaluate. Is it reasonable to believe God created humans? Does our complexity prove a designer? Or do biological inefficiencies prove a random process? There is no need for this to turn into a debate human origins - I only mean to demonstrate the type of claim that would allow for a well thought out and reasonable counter argument and explain why 'God created everything' isn't such a claim.
God is existence.
"God said to Moses, "I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I am has sent me to you.'" Exodus 3:14
"Very truly I tell you," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" John 8:58
"God said to Moses, "I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I am has sent me to you.'" Exodus 3:14
"Very truly I tell you," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" John 8:58
Let me cogitate on your post. I'll need time to give it the respectful and thoughtful response it deserves.
I guess if I had to choose living a life with faith in nothingness vs faith in an loving God as the create....The cost benefit easily choose that of God. I have nothing to lose if I am wrong, but everything to gain if I am right.aggiedata said:
Science has proven that the universe had a beginning.
It takes more faith to believe that Nothing created this amazing universe than God.
Plus...then you just get into the whole life has no definitive meaning and then nihilism, etc. Just way to depressing to even consider.
Ironically, there are some studies that say that we are all born believers...there are just some who grow to choose the atheism path.
BluHorseShu said:
Ironically, there are some studies that say that we are all born believers...there are just some who grow to choose the atheism path.
Paul stated that much in Romans 1.
If this is Pascal's Wager, then its my opinion that this is a poor reason to believe.BluHorseShu said:
I guess if I had to choose living a life with faith in nothingness vs faith in an loving God as the create....The cost benefit easily choose that of God. I have nothing to lose if I am wrong, but everything to gain if I am right.
Quote:
Ironically, there are some studies that say that we are all born believers...there are just some who grow to choose the atheism path.
Would you mind sharing some of these studies? Do they suggest we are all born to believe in a vaguely defined 'something' or in the Christian God?
Pascal's wager is by no means intended to be some kind of gotcha logical argument. Rather its something that can be applied with all other evidence. The idea is that if someone sees cogent arguments for both Christianity and atheism, it is a tool to apply.kurt vonnegut said:If this is Pascal's Wager, then its my opinion that this is a poor reason to believe.BluHorseShu said:
I guess if I had to choose living a life with faith in nothingness vs faith in an loving God as the create....The cost benefit easily choose that of God. I have nothing to lose if I am wrong, but everything to gain if I am right.Quote:
Ironically, there are some studies that say that we are all born believers...there are just some who grow to choose the atheism path.
Would you mind sharing some of these studies? Do they suggest we are all born to believe in a vaguely defined 'something' or in the Christian God?
As far as the studies, I will see if I can find them. The idea is that even at birth, we all have a innate desire to make sense of things and continue to seek more understanding. Now, one could argue that is just a function of our higher brain ability. We could also downplay the immense experiences we have with love, beauty in the natural world, hope for better things as just chemical reactions developed from evolution. But I think we have to make a choice if our innate desire to find meaning in our lives is purely by incalculable chance or something greater than ourselves that created this deep desire.
BluHorseShu said:
Pascal's wager is by no means intended to be some kind of gotcha logical argument. Rather its something that can be applied with all other evidence. The idea is that if someone sees cogent arguments for both Christianity and atheism, it is a tool to apply.
As far as the studies, I will see if I can find them. The idea is that even at birth, we all have a innate desire to make sense of things and continue to seek more understanding. Now, one could argue that is just a function of our higher brain ability. We could also downplay the immense experiences we have with love, beauty in the natural world, hope for better things as just chemical reactions developed from evolution. But I think we have to make a choice if our innate desire to find meaning in our lives is purely by incalculable chance or something greater than ourselves that created this deep desire.
Responding in reverse order -
The reason I don't give much credit to the idea that we are born as believers or that we are all born with God's law written on our heart (or however you want to phrase it) is simply the fact that nothing like Christianity spontaneously happens anywhere ever. The only Christians and the only people that have Christian values are those who have been taught Christianity. If groups of people all across the world had come to something nearly identical to Christianity all on their own and independently, that would be something remarkable. In this way, Christianity looks very much like a regional cultural phenomenon that happened to be the one that was best equipped or in the best position to spread.
If the studies you reference simply suggest an inclination toward supernatural belief, then I would point out that this inclination has lead to the development of thousands of religions and beliefs. If only one of those religions is correct, I think we could agree that this supernatural inclination has a horrific track record of leading us to truth. Almost without fail, this inclination leads us to adopt the supernatural ideas most close at hand. I mean, thats why you all are Christians, right? You were born into it. Had you been born into a culture that was 99.9% Muslim, there is a near perfect chance that this is what you would believe.
Regarding Pascal's Wager, I find it a problematic tool for a number of reasons -
1. It assumes a binary choice between the Christian God and atheism. In reality, it should be a choice between 10,000 versions of the Christian God, every other God or god to have been considered, the potential for a God that hasn't been considered, and atheism. If you are to believe in God because it might yield the best outcome for you, then which God do you choose? Your odds of guessing right are not 50/50.
2. Pascal's Wager explicitly advocates a self serving motivation. The whole argument is framed around hedging one's bets in order to give your own self the best chances at reward. As you said yourself, you have "everything to gain if [you are] right".
3. There is a problem of sincerity. Which is better - to believe in God because you might get a reward or remain agnostic for honest and sincere reasons. Isn't the God you believe in smart enough to know our motivations? Might God be more sympathetic to a person who withheld belief because they just were not sure as opposed to someone who believed for the purpose of their own gain?
4. Pascal himself very clearly advocated a 'fake it til you make it' approach to belief for non-believers. I think most sincere religious believers would distance themselves from a strategy of intentional self deception for selfish purpose.
In the end, its an argument I don't feel comfortable with. It doesn't feel like honest belief.
I understand most of your logic but I'd like to add something: there are people who make it after faking it. I view normative cultural Christian belief as something that brought marginal believers into the church and actually benefited them.
We are changed by what we do, which may not be addressed in your response. When you use a hammer for construction, you cease to think about doing it without a hammer. My father didn't want to take communion weekly at our church because he was afraid it would become empty ritual. He doesn't recognize that his thought is what keeps it from being so, that by merely being cognizant of it he's already achieved that.
One can't simply make the wager and be unaffected in a Christian community. Just something to add to the discussion of Pascal's wager.
We are changed by what we do, which may not be addressed in your response. When you use a hammer for construction, you cease to think about doing it without a hammer. My father didn't want to take communion weekly at our church because he was afraid it would become empty ritual. He doesn't recognize that his thought is what keeps it from being so, that by merely being cognizant of it he's already achieved that.
One can't simply make the wager and be unaffected in a Christian community. Just something to add to the discussion of Pascal's wager.
Pascal did not actually articulate his wager as it is commonly presented. It is presented as a reason for being a Christian. Pascal actually argued that, if there is a chance that Christianity is true, the consequences of being wrong are so drastic that one should devote oneself intensely to examining it.
AGC said:
I understand most of your logic but I'd like to add something: there are people who make it after faking it. I view normative cultural Christian belief as something that brought marginal believers into the church and actually benefited them.
We are changed by what we do, which may not be addressed in your response. When you use a hammer for construction, you cease to think about doing it without a hammer. My father didn't want to take communion weekly at our church because he was afraid it would become empty ritual. He doesn't recognize that his thought is what keeps it from being so, that by merely being cognizant of it he's already achieved that.
One can't simply make the wager and be unaffected in a Christian community. Just something to add to the discussion of Pascal's wager.
As I understand Pascal, the change that occurs in which people begin to believe is very much the point. Pascal directly hoped for people to fake it long enough that they do make it and does cause them to change. And not all self deception has to be 'bad' and I understand it can have positive utility and that we are all guilty of various forms of self deception. . . . . But, I think I'm uncomfortable with it because it seems to not only acknowledge that we can teach ourselves to believe our own lies, but it seems to encourage it. It seems to be an open endorsement of self deception where it offers personal gain. No?
kurt vonnegut said:AGC said:
I understand most of your logic but I'd like to add something: there are people who make it after faking it. I view normative cultural Christian belief as something that brought marginal believers into the church and actually benefited them.
We are changed by what we do, which may not be addressed in your response. When you use a hammer for construction, you cease to think about doing it without a hammer. My father didn't want to take communion weekly at our church because he was afraid it would become empty ritual. He doesn't recognize that his thought is what keeps it from being so, that by merely being cognizant of it he's already achieved that.
One can't simply make the wager and be unaffected in a Christian community. Just something to add to the discussion of Pascal's wager.
As I understand Pascal, the change that occurs in which people begin to believe is very much the point. Pascal directly hoped for people to fake it long enough that they do make it and does cause them to change. And not all self deception has to be 'bad' and I understand it can have positive utility and that we are all guilty of various forms of self deception. . . . . But, I think I'm uncomfortable with it because it seems to not only acknowledge that we can teach ourselves to believe our own lies, but it seems to encourage it. It seems to be an open endorsement of self deception where it offers personal gain. No?
I don't think a great many of the people he or I describe would believe it a lie or deception. I think many are marginal, willing to tip one way or the other but not directly opposed. What makes it a lie or deception? Does our belief (or disbelief) in something have any bearing on that thing's reality?
barbacoa taco said:
the first cause argument always fascinated me. probably because the idea of God always existing and having no starting point, and the big bang being the true beginning of time with nothing before it both equally break my brain and make no sense.
love me a good existential crisis on a Friday morning
It's something that's for sure. I struggle daily with the idea that the Big Bang is the beginning of time as we know it but cannot work my brain into something out of nothing. I also struggle with a personal realization that it's entirely possible God did not create the heavens and the earth but that humanity born of the heavens and the earth created God. Every human to have ever walked this planet has a deity of their own choosing. Necessity is the mother of invention and I fear the mere fact that our brains cannot fathom much of our existence necessitates the creation of something bigger to explain it.
Just a musing of mine….im still hopeful God exists but I won't be shocked if I'm wrong.
AGC said:
I don't think a great many of the people he or I describe would believe it a lie or deception. I think many are marginal, willing to tip one way or the other but not directly opposed. What makes it a lie or deception? Does our belief (or disbelief) in something have any bearing on that thing's reality?
Lets use this definition of self deception: "the practice of allowing oneself to believe that a false or invalidated feeling, idea, or situation is true."
So, for a non-believer, the false or invalidating thing is the thing they are having to try to coerce themselves into believing. And the action of convincing themselves it is true is the self deception. The truth or reality of the thing they are convincing themselves of is irrelevant.
To use a silly example - Lets say I believe the sky is green, but I push myself into believing the sky is blue. The fact that I'm pushing myself toward something more correct doesn't change the fact that to reach that point requires that I allow myself to believe something that I originally believe to be untrue or invalid.
So, Christianity could be true. But, I would say that it is also possible for someone to utilize methods of self deception on the way to arriving at that truth. I don't know if you are endorsing this strategy for bringing people into the faith. Its not something I'm comfortable with - thats all.
I think the idea of self deception is 1) subjective and 2) only problematic if engaging in it harms yourself or others. If you can't prove something one way or another then its not deception....its more like hope. A pragmatic example might be that one's life could currently suck so I can either believe it will get better or it won't. I don't know the future but I'd rather have hope that it will because the only other option is despair (or maybe even acceptance but that seems nihilistic).kurt vonnegut said:AGC said:
I don't think a great many of the people he or I describe would believe it a lie or deception. I think many are marginal, willing to tip one way or the other but not directly opposed. What makes it a lie or deception? Does our belief (or disbelief) in something have any bearing on that thing's reality?
Lets use this definition of self deception: "the practice of allowing oneself to believe that a false or invalidated feeling, idea, or situation is true."
So, for a non-believer, the false or invalidating thing is the thing they are having to try to coerce themselves into believing. And the action of convincing themselves it is true is the self deception. The truth or reality of the thing they are convincing themselves of is irrelevant.
To use a silly example - Lets say I believe the sky is green, but I push myself into believing the sky is blue. The fact that I'm pushing myself toward something more correct doesn't change the fact that to reach that point requires that I allow myself to believe something that I originally believe to be untrue or invalid.
So, Christianity could be true. But, I would say that it is also possible for someone to utilize methods of self deception on the way to arriving at that truth. I don't know if you are endorsing this strategy for bringing people into the faith. Its not something I'm comfortable with - thats all.
Thanks for letting us know who all of the Karl Marx fanatics are online.
kurt vonnegut said:AGC said:
I don't think a great many of the people he or I describe would believe it a lie or deception. I think many are marginal, willing to tip one way or the other but not directly opposed. What makes it a lie or deception? Does our belief (or disbelief) in something have any bearing on that thing's reality?
Lets use this definition of self deception: "the practice of allowing oneself to believe that a false or invalidated feeling, idea, or situation is true."
So, for a non-believer, the false or invalidating thing is the thing they are having to try to coerce themselves into believing. And the action of convincing themselves it is true is the self deception. The truth or reality of the thing they are convincing themselves of is irrelevant.
To use a silly example - Lets say I believe the sky is green, but I push myself into believing the sky is blue. The fact that I'm pushing myself toward something more correct doesn't change the fact that to reach that point requires that I allow myself to believe something that I originally believe to be untrue or invalid.
So, Christianity could be true. But, I would say that it is also possible for someone to utilize methods of self deception on the way to arriving at that truth. I don't know if you are endorsing this strategy for bringing people into the faith. Its not something I'm comfortable with - thats all.
Hmm…but to get to this point of your definition, one must go beyond where even you, yourself are comfortable, yes?
How does one know that 'God' or the Christian God is 'invalidated'? To not have experienced a feeling yet doesn't invalidate its truth, and I don't surmise that you'd claim to have experienced the fullness of all feelings, right? So how could anyone else posit that? Most of the claims are metaphysical and beyond invalidation to a great extent.
Doesn't it make more sense to simply allow that they didn't believe it originally and followed from there?
I do find your example of a blue sky prescient. Homer didn't see blue. There were and maybe still are tribes in Africa that didn't see blue. Scientists introduced them to it and now they can't unsee it. Was a 'blue' sky invalidated before it was revealed?
AGC said:
Hmm…but to get to this point of your definition, one must go beyond where even you, yourself are comfortable, yes?
How does one know that 'God' or the Christian God is 'invalidated'? To not have experienced a feeling yet doesn't invalidate its truth, and I don't surmise that you'd claim to have experienced the fullness of all feelings, right? So how could anyone else posit that? Most of the claims are metaphysical and beyond invalidation to a great extent.
Doesn't it make more sense to simply allow that they didn't believe it originally and followed from there?
I do find your example of a blue sky prescient. Homer didn't see blue. There were and maybe still are tribes in Africa that didn't see blue. Scientists introduced them to it and now they can't unsee it. Was a 'blue' sky invalidated before it was revealed?
One thinks of the Christian god as invalidated the same way that I suspect you see Zeus as invalidated. A lack, on your part, of experience with Zeus does not invalidate him if he is truth. And as such, you can never really invalidate Zeus of any of the tens of thousands of gods and Gods.
But, as practical creatures, we all each have a long list of unfalsifiable things that we treat as though are invalid in our daily lives. Even though we can never disprove Zeus, we feel as though we are justified in treating this god as though he does not exist. Funny enough, Pascal's way of thinking would suggest to us that we should act as though Zeus is real, just in case, in order to avoid punishment for lack of worship (of whatever it is Zeus wants).
I can accept that some people, through application of Pascal's Wager type reasoning, come to a deep belief. At the heart of Pascal's argument though, he argues that we should believe because we fear punishment. And because we don't want to miss out on the prize. I don't place judgement on people to whom this argument is effective, only on the argument itself. I find the argument repulsive. It is shallow. It is belief for the wrong reason.
I am vaguely aware of the tribal groups that didn't see blue. Although, its is my understanding that it is more correct that the didn't have a word for blue and used a single word to describe a category of color that included some greens and blues. Once language is provided to differentiate the variations of color they previously thought of as one color, then those variations became distinct colors.
I am not an expert on the story. When scientists introduced them to blue did the tribes originally reject it as not being a different color. And did they eventually learn to accept the new color only by lying to themselves and pretending that they saw the new color until they had tricked their brain into believing the new color was there?
Pascal explicitly argues for people to lie to themselves, out of fear and in selfish hope for reward, so that they might eventually begin to believe the lie. Regardless of whether the thing is actually a lie or not. . . . come on. . . . .this is surely a problematic argument.
kurt vonnegut said:
It is belief for the wrong reason.
Adding to this: If there is a good and loving God that is worthy of our belief, then such a God deserves something better. Doesn't that God deserve something better than for people to believe in him from fear of what horrific things He would do to those that don't believe? Doesn't that God deserve better than the utilization of decision theory to determine the how best to minimize personal risk and maximize personal gain? Pascal's wager has nothing to do with love or sincerity and everything to do with 'how can I best manipulate the situation to my greatest benefit?'.
kurt vonnegut said:
Pascal explicitly argues for people to lie to themselves, out of fear and in selfish hope for reward, so that they might eventually begin to believe the lie. Regardless of whether the thing is actually a lie or not. . . . come on. . . . .this is surely a problematic argument.
And this as well -
Say I told you I owned a Ferrari and don't offer evidence. And if you believe me, I'll give you a hundred dollars and if you don't, I'll punch you in the face. If you do not know, but you state that believe me only because you want a hundred dollars, you have not acted honestly. And if you do not know, but you state that believe me only because you want to avoid being punched, you have not acted honestly. If you don't actually know if I own a Ferrari, the honest position is to say 'I don't know' and accept the risk of possibly missing a reward or being punished. And now, imagine a God that actually values honesty and sincerity over a follower acting only in self interest.
God has no beginning or end. Time is a physical property of the universe which God designed.
Time can be changed, just like light can be bent. It does not make sense in the normal world we live in but has been experimentally verified. Time is not an absolute marker as we think of it, only going forward at a constant rate.
I know I exist, my consciousness exists at least I perceive it, I know I had a birth and move through time and only exist from one instant to the next.
I suspect God exists at every point in time at once…. He is really not limited to it. I know I don't really understand it.
I know there is an outer space outside our atmosphere, but doubt I could get a fish to understand that, as a fish only moves through water and thinks of nothing else.
Time can be changed, just like light can be bent. It does not make sense in the normal world we live in but has been experimentally verified. Time is not an absolute marker as we think of it, only going forward at a constant rate.
I know I exist, my consciousness exists at least I perceive it, I know I had a birth and move through time and only exist from one instant to the next.
I suspect God exists at every point in time at once…. He is really not limited to it. I know I don't really understand it.
I know there is an outer space outside our atmosphere, but doubt I could get a fish to understand that, as a fish only moves through water and thinks of nothing else.
I wish a buck was still silver, it was back, when the country was strong.
Kurt:
You ask which evidences for God most appeal to me. That's a difficult question to answer because no one evidence or argument jumps out. To me, it's sort of like asking "which is your favorite number?" Anyway, the arguments for God that I can think of off the top of my head include:
Some of those are more in the way of evidence contradicting pure materialism as an explanation for everything as opposed to affirmative evidences for God. But I think both types of evidence go hand-in-hand.
You also said:
My come-back to you is that you seem to argue that since we cannot prove the existence of with 100% certainty, beyond any shadow of any doubt, that we are therefore leaping to conclusions. The core of my argument is that's not true, but rather that the cumulative evidence is so overwhelming that it becomes unreasonable to doubt the existence of God. Your argument seems, to me at least, to be the mirror image of the one you describe in the quote above.
You know, there are probably theories out there that the chair I'm sitting in does not truly exist but is either simply a wave function, an artifact of my mind, or some other creative idea. However, for all practical purposes, it's silly for me to deny that my chair exists. My argument is that for all practical purposes, it is just as silly to deny that God exists as it would be to deny that my chair exists.
You say that "A super intelligent alien software engineer that designed a simulation and stuck us in it meets the definition. Without a clear definition." I agree. That's the first step in abandoning the materialistic explanation for all of existence, including life, that has captured the West for the last 200 years or so. If you agree with that, then the single most important question is whether or not we can identify that "super intelligent alien software engineer".
With regard to my assigning a 70% probability to each of the arguments for God, you respond: "How do we go about assigning likelihoods to any of these arguments?" That's a good question and I readily admit that I pulled 70% out of the air. However, each argument, if it is valid, means that it has >50% chance of being correct. Eventually, with enough of such arguments, then it means that the odds of their being a God is so statistically high as to be essentially 100%.
However, I'm not really making a statistical argument. Rather, I'm trying to point out to you your tendency to poo-poo each argument, by pointing out the lack of certainty of each, without acknowledging their cumulative weight. If I took your approach to everyday life, I'd simply end up sitting in my chair and doing nothing, because I can't "prove" that anything I do or attempt will be effective. We don't live life based on 100% certainties. Rather, we live life based on the preponderance of the overall evidence without picking each point to death.
You conclude by saying:
You ask which evidences for God most appeal to me. That's a difficult question to answer because no one evidence or argument jumps out. To me, it's sort of like asking "which is your favorite number?" Anyway, the arguments for God that I can think of off the top of my head include:
- Existence of "Laws" governing the universe. Why does our universe even have laws? Do laws imply a law giver or maker?
- Fine tuning of the universe. There are a whole lot of aspects of the universe that are precisely "just so". To contend that they just happened that way seems to me to be like fish in an aquarium amazed that the random laws of the aquarium set everything "just so" perfectly for the fish.
- Incredible complexity of life, especially cell structure
- Complete inability of random processes to explain life
- Existence of Information. In our experience, information is generated by an intelligence 100% of the time. We have no examples at all of random processes generating information. An obvious major example of information is DNA. To claim that random processes can produce information is a denial of science, of knowledge, and is simply a hopeful assertion completely unsupported by any evidence or data whatsoever.
- Beauty. Why is there beauty in the universe and why are we able to perceive and appreciate it?
- Origin of life. All the necessary "ingredients" had to be present for the first cell to survive, including the cell membrane, DNA/RNA, Organelles, and Biochemical processes
- Origin of humans
- Free will
- Altruism & love
- Irreducible complexity
- Specified complexity
- Discontinuity and explosions in the fossil record
Some of those are more in the way of evidence contradicting pure materialism as an explanation for everything as opposed to affirmative evidences for God. But I think both types of evidence go hand-in-hand.
You also said:
That may be true in some cases and with some people, but I don't believe that's always true. Rather, I think that the evidence points to some super-intelligence having created the universe and life.Quote:
The teleological and anthropic arguments are interesting, but they require us to ignore the possibility that we lack the creativity or intelligence by simply jumping to 'therefore God'. In my opinion, the most compelling arguments for God still take the form of "We cannot fathom any other answer to this question, therefore it must be God."
My come-back to you is that you seem to argue that since we cannot prove the existence of with 100% certainty, beyond any shadow of any doubt, that we are therefore leaping to conclusions. The core of my argument is that's not true, but rather that the cumulative evidence is so overwhelming that it becomes unreasonable to doubt the existence of God. Your argument seems, to me at least, to be the mirror image of the one you describe in the quote above.
You know, there are probably theories out there that the chair I'm sitting in does not truly exist but is either simply a wave function, an artifact of my mind, or some other creative idea. However, for all practical purposes, it's silly for me to deny that my chair exists. My argument is that for all practical purposes, it is just as silly to deny that God exists as it would be to deny that my chair exists.
You say that "A super intelligent alien software engineer that designed a simulation and stuck us in it meets the definition. Without a clear definition." I agree. That's the first step in abandoning the materialistic explanation for all of existence, including life, that has captured the West for the last 200 years or so. If you agree with that, then the single most important question is whether or not we can identify that "super intelligent alien software engineer".
With regard to my assigning a 70% probability to each of the arguments for God, you respond: "How do we go about assigning likelihoods to any of these arguments?" That's a good question and I readily admit that I pulled 70% out of the air. However, each argument, if it is valid, means that it has >50% chance of being correct. Eventually, with enough of such arguments, then it means that the odds of their being a God is so statistically high as to be essentially 100%.
However, I'm not really making a statistical argument. Rather, I'm trying to point out to you your tendency to poo-poo each argument, by pointing out the lack of certainty of each, without acknowledging their cumulative weight. If I took your approach to everyday life, I'd simply end up sitting in my chair and doing nothing, because I can't "prove" that anything I do or attempt will be effective. We don't live life based on 100% certainties. Rather, we live life based on the preponderance of the overall evidence without picking each point to death.
I don't think that's true. All it would take it to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that each of the evidences for God was caused by materialistic processes. We not only are incapable of doing that, we actually don't have any evidences in support of such arguments.Quote:
In other words, to provide a counter argument against the existence or actions of an infinitely powerful being must be, by definition, an impossible task.
You conclude by saying:
I don't follow your argument at all here. Could you clarify?Quote:
The existence of 'something' might be interesting, but it doesn't tell me how to live my life, anything about morality, or anything about purpose. Once the belief becomes fleshed out and we assign purpose and values and meaning to God's intent, then we have something practical. And at that point, we also have the ability to provide more effective counter arguments against. If the God you believe in, created human beings, then there is now a claim that is concrete enough for us to evaluate. Is it reasonable to believe God created humans? Does our complexity prove a designer? Or do biological inefficiencies prove a random process? There is no need for this to turn into a debate human origins - I only mean to demonstrate the type of claim that would allow for a well thought out and reasonable counter argument and explain why 'God created everything' isn't such a claim.
Featured Stories
See All
Learned, Loved, Loathed: Auburn 43, Texas A&M 41 (4OT)
by Olin Buchanan
27:51
11h ago
5.9k
'Thank yOU?' A&M's outlook unaffected by disappointment at Auburn
by Olin Buchanan
12:07
10h ago
12k
Post Game Review: Auburn 43, No. 15 Texas A&M 41 (4OT)
by Kay Naegeli