# Agnostics, what would make you believe in God? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 28, 2005, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-what-would-make-you-believe-in-god/314572 "2005-07-28T13:16:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2005, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-what-would-make-you-believe-in-god/314572/101 "2005-07-29T14:56:28Z")
> [@Snag](#): > > True, but we don’t know that such an entity isn’t able to do more than to kick off creation, while the rest of our developement may be left up to natural processes. We could probably be cloning ants in a few years, we may be able to enhance them somewhat, but we may never be able to bring them to our level at the size of their brain capacity. > > Likewise how do we know that such a Godlike entity was not once like us? Perhaps a million more years of technological advancement might give our decendents such new capabilities. Earning our stipes so to speak? The term ‘God’ is a placeholder for a group of properties. I think the only common denominator is ‘essence underlying Reality’. In which case, any further properties are speculation or claimed “revelations”. To use ‘God’ to signify just this common denominator, is useless. Humans are concerned with teleology, Is there anything that we need to do, or ought to do? and Why? Most religions profess a whole bundle of description and prescription, whereas all that is self-evident is some ineffable existential instinct. The real point of the OP is, is there a way that would cause one to embody that instinct into something more tangible? ---
**Author:** ![theamazingluther](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f08c70/32.png) [@theamazingluther](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/theamazingluther)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2005, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-what-would-make-you-believe-in-god/314572/102 "2005-07-29T14:58:00Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > That’s why I’m an atheist, and not an agnostic. If I were an agnostic, I would have to apply the same “benefit of the doubt” to all possible claims. I state that I believe god does not exists for the same reason I state fairies do no exist. Because I’ve the same evidences for the existence of both : none. And despite the fact that I can’t prove the non-existence of either. Answering “I don’t know, it’s a reasonnable claim” to the “is there a god?” question would led me to answer the same to the “are there fairies?” question, to the “Is G.W. Bush an alien in disguise?” question and to essentially any other unproven claim you could come up with. I’m bored at work, and going around in rhetorical circles keeps looking better and better. A good deal of this thread has been aiming to distinguish the above cases. There are no reasons to posit the idea that there are fairies, or that G.W. Bush is an alien in disguise. However, the mystery of existence, for lack of a better term, leads people to posit the existence of a god or gods. Quite simple, really. Now, you can use your logic to debunk any _specific_ religion, if you don’t buy the prophecies and manifestations on which it is based. However, the sheer wackiness of existence leads the existence of a higher power to be just as arbitrary an answer as the lack thereof. Theorizing a god can serve a purpose in one’s view of the world, but the residence of Random Q. McWeirdthing on Saturn can’t. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2005, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-what-would-make-you-believe-in-god/314572/103 "2005-07-29T15:06:53Z")
There is also no reason to posit the existence of God. The statement that existence is a 'mystery" (insofar as it presupposes an undiscovered _purpose_) is an assumption without support. We don’t need to posit “God” as the answer to a question until it can be proven that there _is_ a question. Nothing has ever been discovered in the universe which would _necessitate_ a god, and as long as we can explain things without magic, it’s irrational to _prefer_ magic explanations to natural ones. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2005, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-what-would-make-you-believe-in-god/314572/104 "2005-07-29T15:10:05Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > clair, we hold beliefs that have some utility. If a belief has had utility for us in our lives in the past, then we’ll hang on to it until it is disproven. Intelligent cabbages doesn’t have utility; for many god belief does. I think both a personal conviction, as well as the assention of all others, that I AM GOD might have a great deal of utility to me. If it’s good to be the king, it must be _really_ good to be God. Maybe I should just tell people I am and see how far it gets me. I might even come to believe it myself. You never know how handy being God might be. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2005, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-what-would-make-you-believe-in-god/314572/105 "2005-07-29T15:19:39Z")
I would believe in Ra the Sun God, if any decent Earth telescope could see His Chariot pulling the Sun. Why would that be difficult for a God? And it satisfies the excellent conditions of **tim314** : ‘In order to make an agnostic believe in God, you’d probably at least have to provide a detailed message transmitted simultaneously to multiple people in different parts of the world, in such a way that it could only have come from a being of immense power or knowledge.’ ---
**Author:** ![theamazingluther](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f08c70/32.png) [@theamazingluther](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/theamazingluther)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2005, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-what-would-make-you-believe-in-god/314572/106 "2005-07-29T15:26:08Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > There is also no reason to posit the existence of God. The statement that existence is a 'mystery" (insofar as it presupposes an undiscovered _purpose_) is an assumption without support. We don’t need to posit “God” as the answer to a question until it can be proven that there _is_ a question. Nothing has ever been discovered in the universe which would _necessitate_ a god, and as long as we can explain things without magic, it’s irrational to _prefer_ magic explanations to natural ones. You and the magic. Tell me where I’m wrong here: 1. You define magic as that which is impossible. 2. You insist that God is magic. 3. You therefore say that gods are impossible. I don’t see where you get this certainty that to be a god/creator of a universe is impossible. The whole “we’ve never observed it elsewhere” definition of magic would only be valuable if you could visit the Universe Factory or Universe Springs State Park, where universes are made through natural means ten times a day. “Oh, that’s how/why it was done,” you’d say. But we don’t know how a universe is born. Terms like “magic,” whose only definition seems to be the opposite of “natural”, have no meaning when you don’t know what the “natural” way is. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2005, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-what-would-make-you-believe-in-god/314572/107 "2005-07-29T16:06:22Z")
I’m saying that “magic” is a lazy and irrational answer to scientific questions. It’s not even really an answer at all. It’s just the proposition of a power or ability which can just _do_ whatever it is and thereby _avoid_ seeking a genuine explanation. “God” is no better an answer to questions we don’t have an answer to than “magic.” It’s really the _same_ answer. A “magic man” did it is a ridiculous hypothesis which does not deserve to be taken any more seriously than fairies. It certainly is not rational to prefer magical explanations where natural explanations would do just as well and not be saddled with the downside of being impossible. I’ve used the analogy before of detectives investigating a murder. Do you think that those detectives should consider only natural possibilities and human suspects or would you say that they must give equal credence to the possibility of werewolves or evil genies. If they find tire tracks in the snow leading away from the murder scene, should they assume the tracks were left by a car, or should they remain open to the possibility that they were miraculously put there by the Anasazi god, Kokopelli? Would you say that car tires and Kokpelli are equally reasonable possibilities? Why should scientific inquiry into the nature or origins of the universe give any more credence to “supernatural” explanations than detectives investigating a murder? ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2005, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-what-would-make-you-believe-in-god/314572/108 "2005-07-29T16:19:44Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > I think both a personal conviction, as well as the assention of all others, that I AM GOD might have a great deal of utility to me. If it’s good to be the king, it must be > _really_ good to be God. Maybe I should just tell people I am and see how far it gets me. I might even come to believe it myself. You never know how handy being God might be. But it wouldn’t actually have any utility for you. You do know what utility means? Usefulness? Believing that you are God, or hearing God’s voice, etc., is only useful to you if it others believe it as well, and in today’s society you are more likely going to get a psych eval than have it be useful. OTOH there is little debate that having a god concept has utility for many individuals. ---
**Author:** ![theamazingluther](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f08c70/32.png) [@theamazingluther](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/theamazingluther)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2005, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-what-would-make-you-believe-in-god/314572/109 "2005-07-29T16:28:48Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I’m saying that “magic” is a lazy and irrational answer to scientific questions. It’s not even really an answer at all. It’s just the proposition of a power or ability which can just _do_ whatever it is and thereby _avoid_ seeking a genuine explanation. “God” is no better an answer to questions we don’t have an answer to than “magic.” It’s really the _same_ answer. A “magic man” did it is a ridiculous hypothesis which does not deserve to be taken any more seriously than fairies. It certainly is not rational to prefer magical explanations where natural explanations would do just as well and not be saddled with the downside of being impossible. > > I’ve used the analogy before of detectives investigating a murder. Do you think that those detectives should consider only natural possibilities and human suspects or would you say that they must give equal credence to the possibility of werewolves or evil genies. If they find tire tracks in the snow leading away from the murder scene, should they assume the tracks were left by a car, or should they remain open to the possibility that they were miraculously put there by the Anasazi god, Kokopelli? Would you say that car tires and Kokpelli are equally reasonable possibilities? > > Why should scientific inquiry into the nature or origins of the universe give any more credence to “supernatural” explanations than detectives investigating a murder? 1. To what reasonable possibilities are you referring? The detective, I presume, has about 6 billion mere mortal potential suspects. The questions on the origins and potential purposes of the universe have no “reasonable” potential explanations of which I am aware. Again, that the universe sprang into existence all by itself for no reason sounds pretty “magic” to me. 2. I don’t know when this debate became about science. This is about logical thought. Science is logical thought plus observation. What we are talking about is impossible to approach from an observational viewpoint. It is outside the realms of science as we know it. Maybe someday it won’t be, but as of now, it is. Scientists should give no credence to theories about the supernatural. Defining a scientist to be rational is one thing; defining the rational person to be a scientist is, in my opinion, going too far. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2005, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-what-would-make-you-believe-in-god/314572/110 "2005-07-29T16:54:57Z")
Why is it “magical” for the universe to spring into existence on its own? Ever heard of quantum fluxuations? Even if if you don’t like the natural hypotheses (and there’s no good reason to dismiss them), postulating “God” only makes your problem _more_ complex, not less. If a magic man made the universe, then what made the magic man? ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2005, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-what-would-make-you-believe-in-god/314572/111 "2005-07-29T16:56:44Z")
> [@theamazingluther](#): > > There are no reasons to posit the idea that there are fairies, or that G.W. Bush is an alien in disguise. Well, the last one might explain a few things … ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2005, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-what-would-make-you-believe-in-god/314572/112 "2005-07-29T17:03:38Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Believing that you are God, or hearing God’s voice, etc., is only useful to you if it others believe it as well… Entirely my point. If people believe I’m God, it might not only useful to me, but others as well, so long as I was reasonably benevolent, and people would do whatever I say. Likelyhood is irrelevant. What’s also irrlelevant is if I am actually God or not. ---
**Author:** ![theamazingluther](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f08c70/32.png) [@theamazingluther](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/theamazingluther)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2005, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-what-would-make-you-believe-in-god/314572/113 "2005-07-29T17:24:22Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Why is it “magical” for the universe to spring into existence on its own? Ever heard of quantum fluxuations? > > Even if if you don’t like the natural hypotheses (and there’s no good reason to dismiss them), postulating “God” only makes your problem _more_ complex, not less. If a magic man made the universe, then what made the magic man? I don’t “dislike” what you call the natural hypotheses. I just dispute that they can be called “natural.” Quantum fluxuations, as I understand them, are presently theoretical. No one knows exactly what they are, how they happen, or if they exist. In fact, the only difference I see between them and magic is that you are more willing to accept their possible existence. To that matter, the only difference between “god” and “nature,” as far as I can tell, is that god is a sentient being, whereas what you call natural explanations just happen on their own. Remember, no one here is arguing that the existence of a god is more logical or rational hypothesis than any other explanation. Just not ridiculously less so. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2005, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-what-would-make-you-believe-in-god/314572/114 "2005-07-29T17:43:04Z")
Loopy, Then you seem to be making a point that has little to do with what I was saying. But let’s go with it. Exactly. It is irelevant. Belief systems, be they scientific, secular, religious, or other, are, in actuality, less about determining the true nature of reality than they are about _utility_. Scientific models are of use if they make accurate predictions about future observations and occurances. Newtonian physics was and is useful even if it not the best model of reality because it gives acccurate predictions about the movements of objects in most of time-space that we can observe. But there are other kinds of utility and other kinds of belief systems that are best suited to provide for them. My point was small: if a belief is useful to an individual it is hard to get someone to drop it because utility is the bottom line; a belief of no utility to an individual is, OTOH, a hard sell. Atheists and agnostics tend to fall into the latter camp in regards to God belief, believers in the former. ---
**Author:** ![ouryL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ouryl/32/6067_2.png) [@ouryL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ouryL)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2005, 9:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-what-would-make-you-believe-in-god/314572/115 "2005-07-30T09:46:24Z")
Thumbscrews. 😛😛😛 ---
**Author:** ![Snag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/94ad74/32.png) [@Snag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snag)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2005, 9:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-what-would-make-you-believe-in-god/314572/116 "2005-07-30T09:53:27Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#): > > The term ‘God’ is a placeholder for a group of properties. I think the only common denominator is ‘essence underlying Reality’. In which case, any further properties are speculation or claimed “revelations”. To use ‘God’ to signify just this common denominator, is useless. Humans are concerned with teleology, Is there anything that we need to do, or ought to do? and Why? Most religions profess a whole bundle of description and prescription, whereas all that is self-evident is some ineffable existential instinct. The real point of the OP is, is there a way that would cause one to embody that instinct into something more tangible? Well, you make a good point, if I read you correctly, that should God exist how would we truly know God’s will or purpose? I think that anything tangible, any sign that a creator exists will be something subtle. Even if there is a distinct message to us, because I expect a God-like being to be so far beyond our comprehension, even if it can communicate with us it would likely not be something readily seen. Just because a creator may be omnipotent does not assure us that it is all powerful and able to do anything. Or it may apply such power in ways that are not quite obvious to us yet. Most here are suggesting that outright miracles or incredibly unlikely occurrences might at least get their attention and consider such an entity. But I think it would more likely be something very subtle, woven into the fabric of the universe. We may not yet be smart enough to see it. Even though I think now there is a very small probability of the possible existence of God, I cannot deny the possibility that there is something to the massively large anecdotal beliefs that still persists. Perhaps the need for such beliefs and tales are remnants of thousands of years of superstition in a world that is not yet adequately educated enough to ignore superstition. In a few generations perhaps many such beliefs will disappear. Or perhaps there is a genetic survival trait associated with such beliefs. But there may be something intrinsic behind these beliefs, but the evidence may be something we are not yet wise enough, or technologically capable enough yet to see. Perhaps spiritual needs will drive us to look for such evidence in our ‘newly found’ utilization of the scientific method. Just as a good parent must be patient and realizes that the child must ultimately make crucial discoveries about the world for themselves, we may only be seeing fleeting glimpses of a God’s hand. It’s very unscientific IMO to completely close the door on the possibility that such evidence is out there. The probabilities are small, and can likely be discounted short of a thread of proof that we have not yet seen. If we never see it, then such probabilities will grow ever smaller and eventually be forgotten. But if we think ourselves so damned smart that we already know everything, like some overly self-assured adolescent that doesn’t know half as much as they think they do, we may miss the greatest discovery of all time. Perhaps growing to a higher level of moral and scientific sophistication it is a test that we must pass in order to gain such knowledge. It may also not matter to a God whether or not we find such proof. Thus, returning to the OP’s question, I’m not sure of what I (we) may need to look for to become convinced of God’s existence. Mostly because I would assume that we still cannot properly define what God is in the first place, should It exist. While I understand that you cannot disprove a negative, if you don’t know what you’re looking for in the first place, the argument is moot. ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2005, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-what-would-make-you-believe-in-god/314572/117 "2005-07-30T12:51:33Z")
> [@Snag](#): > > I think that anything tangible, any sign that a creator exists will be something subtle. Why? And who decides? > [@](#): > > Just because a creator may be omnipotent does not assure us that it is all powerful and able to do anything. Actually, that’s exactly what it means. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2005, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-what-would-make-you-believe-in-god/314572/118 "2005-07-30T14:49:59Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#): > > Actually, that’s exactly what it means. Emphasis on the “may” in **Snag** ’s post, I think. Omnipotence is really only a postulate that seems to be taken as gospel (ha) in discussions of this nature. However, the only necessary condition on the creator is that it be _sufficiently_ powerful to have created the universe. I agree that to us, this is likely to be indistinguishable from omnipotence, but it’s not one and the same thing. Consider that it can take a handclap or a dropped pebble to start a landslide, and the thought arises that our potential creator could actually be a relative weakling that just happened to set something enormous in train. ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2005, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-what-would-make-you-believe-in-god/314572/119 "2005-07-30T15:24:23Z")
> [@Dead Badger](#): > > However, the only necessary condition on the creator is that it be _sufficiently_ powerful to have created the universe. If ‘God’ is simply the creator of Earth, then God may be an alien bound by a higher power. But ‘God’ traditionally means progenitor of All there is, including the universe. If you’re defining universe as just everything within our particular spacetime horizon, then you’re technically correct, but that is a recent redefinition of universe. By ‘universe’, I mean ‘all there is’ i.e. all the way down, beyond universes, multiverses, and whatever other categorizations that are speculated. In that all-inclusive sense, God has to be omnipotent since any constraint is created and controlled by It. So, ‘sufficiently’ powerful is nonsensical. It implies that God is bound by some constraint that can’t be undone by It. Your weaker “sufficiently” God is not The God then. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2005, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-what-would-make-you-believe-in-god/314572/120 "2005-07-30T15:32:08Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > You misunderstood me. I’m not saying _your_ claim is unscientific, I’m saying the non-falsifiability of the claim “The universe has a purpose” (which you pointed out) makes the “the universe has a purpose” an unscientific claim. I think we’re _agreeing_ with each other here. However, just because a claim isn’t scientific doesn’t mean it’s illogical to believe it to be true. No, but if a belief involves something which is _prima facie_ impossible (i.e. something which does not conform to the physical laws of the universe) AND if it involves a belief in something for which there cannot be shown any _necessity_, then it is illogical to _prefer_ such a hypothesis to anything less problematic and superfluous. Ockham’s Razor comes into play here. As long as the universe can be explained without magic, it is an unnecessary multiplication of _entia_ to hypothesize it. > [@](#): > > I thought your contention was that people who _believe_ in God are being illogical. Was I misunderstanding? I’m saying it’s a conclusion which is not _arrived_ at by logic, which is logically unnecessary to explain the universe and which violates Ockham’s Razor. It is not a conclusion from reason or a result of a logical chain, it’s just an arbitrary hypothesis which is believed for emotional reasons rather than logically necessary reasons. > [@](#): > > I’d be genuinely interested to see what that argument is. I would argue that human beings are social, culture-bearing animals who have evolved to survive not as individuals but as communities. Certain kinds of behavior (murder, theft, rape, etc.) destabalize the community and threaten its survival as a whole. Moral codes within human communities promote the health of the community and the survival of that population as a whole. Behavior that unnecessarily threatens the survival of the community is therefore “wrong,” and all such behavior is forbidden and severely sanctioned by the community. That’s it. It’s evolution. Culture (which includes moral codes) is an evolutionary adaptation which protects the stability of individual human communities and increases the chances that offspring will survive long enough to reproduce. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > “Justice” is just a human cultural construction. It’s governed by human thought, which is a product of biological evolution, which is a result of- and is governed by- physical laws and properties of the universe. Many people believe justice has real existence indpendent of human opinion – that certain outcomes are inherently more just than others, and not merely because we say so. I guess you’re in the group that doesn’t believe that. [/quote] No I don’t. I don’t see how justice can have any meaning at all outside of human thought. > [@](#): > > But at any rate, even if justice is just a product of beings who are governed by physical laws, justice itself isn’t governed by physical laws. There is no law of physics that applies directly to justice. If human thought is governed by physical laws (and it is…“thinking” is just a lot of complex, chemical reactions) then the products of thought are products of physical laws. Physical laws made humans evolve and makes them think. Our consciousness is completely dependant on chemistry. > [@](#): > > Things made of matter and/or which carry energy are material things. Things like concepts and ideas (for example) are not.Well, in the example of an idea, its informational content distinguishes it from nothing. An idea is non-material. You could say it’s a set of neurons firing in my head, but a different set of neurons might fire in your head when you think that idea. And yet, it’s the same idea. The physical world just contains representations of it. Another representation would be writing on a page that states the idea. Again, a totally different physical representation of the exact same idea. So the idea _itself_ is not a material thing. You say that an idea has 'infomational content," but I would argue that an idea consists _only_ of information and nothing else. It’s a bit of acquired knowledge or belief which can be communicated to others. At no time does an idea have any existence independent of human thought. Writing on a page has no meaning until it is interpreted by a thinker. The idea does not exist in the writing any more than musical notation is music. The writing is only a medium to transfer information. > [@](#): > > My point is that if a wizard is “a material being who interacts with the world in ways that don’t conform to physical laws”, then it’s not sensible to believe in wizards. I’m agreeing with you with regard to wizards. However, I’m saying it’s different for God, because God is “an _immaterial_ being who interacts with the world in ways that don’t conform to physical laws.” And I’m saying that “immateriality” is the same as non-existence. It is not possible to have non-material interaction with matter. > [@](#): > > I’m saying no material being could bend the whole world to his will through physical forces alone. Christians believe that Jesus was a material being who did just that. If we’re going to hypothesize magical powers, why put a limit on them? > [@](#): > > For one thing, he couldn’t instantaneously affect distant objects, since those forces could only propagate from his position at the speed of light. Not if he’s Jesus. See, that’s what I’m saying, if we’re going to abandon physical laws, then we don’t need to bind ourselves to such technicalities as the speed of light. > [@](#): > > > [@Diogenes the cynic](#): > > > > I don’t get it. If something is external to the universe, than it’s not part of the universe and is insensible to the universe. If it’s insensible to the universe then it’s the same as if it doesn’t exist. > > Let’s say I take out a piece of paper and draw a line down the middle. Then I draw a circle to the left of the line and a circle to the right. Now, every object on the plane obeys certain geometric laws, one of them being that it can’t touch both circles without touching the line. But I, as an object _not_ on the plane, can easily break that law. In this example I’m external to the paper, I’m interacting with the objects on the paper, and I’m doing so in a way that violates the rules which hold for objects on the paper. Replace “I” with “God” and “paper” with “universe,” and I don’t see any reason why that sentence couldn’t still be true. But the paper isn’t really a plane. That may sound like an obtuse objection but it isn’t. You are _not_ interacting with a two dimensional paradigm, nor can you. You are a three dimensional being interacting with a thtree dimensional object. As long as you are truly “outside” of a plane, you can never interact with it. > [@](#): > > I’m not arguing that God can do “magic”, I’m saying there’s no compelling reason to think that he can’t. The ability to do magic is built into the definition of “God.” A God that can’t do magic isn’t God. The question is whether there is any compelling reason to believe that the universe _requires_ this magical being to exist or whether there is any evidence that he has ever magically interacted with the universe since its beginning. So far, the answer to both of those questions is no. > [@](#): > > I don’t find “God can’t do magic because material entities existing in the universe can’t do magic” to be a compelling argument, for the reasons I gave above. And entities “outside” of the universe cannot interact with it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-what-would-make-you-believe-in-god/314572.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-what-would-make-you-believe-in-god/314572.md?page=7)