I see I have posted once again in Great Debates forgeting that there is a format for this type of discussion. :smack:
Alas, I have no formal training in this particular exersize and find myself at a loss to play well.
But I’m all for understanding and will continue to discuss my belief system when appropriate.
Something I often fail to notice when I see discussions of this nature is that most are talking about a specific, mind-picture God or gods. I, for lack of another word, use the word “God” to conceptualize whatever Great Force powers existence of everything.
And I do think that the way one frames that can influence one’s life for the better whether it’s imaginary or real. If that effect is positive then I respect that.
(Next you see this absent-minded person stumble in with an opinion you may give me a gentle nudge toward the door with reminder that “You don’t DO debate, yah old fool.” Thanks.)
Now ,if you can convince others that you actually have a dragon, that only you can see, you have the basics of a religion. The flock will have to trust your special ability to see and communicate with the dragon. You can say you will keep them safe if they come by every Sunday morning and drop off food and money. They of course the garage is too small for such a magnificent creature. So they must build a huge and fancy building to appease it. Then your friends and family will have to become dragon handlers. You can branch out and save other areas . They of course need a fancy building in each area. You are on your way .
Doesn’t make sense. If the dragon is incorporeal then by definition it’s invisible. Tautology.
You’re asserting that an impossible creature exists here on earth. God people are asserting that an impossible creature exists elsewhere in the universe. Seems like a pretty clear distinction to me.
The dragon violates the laws of physics so it would be foolish to keep an open mind about that. I don’t know what the laws of physics are in the part of the universe that god resides in so I can’t form an opinion on whether He violates them or not.
So are you saying that God doesn’t interact with the earth, or that it doesn’t violate physical laws here if he does because he’s sitting on a couch across the universe?
Saying that it exists elsewhere in the universe isn’t really a relevant distinction. Going to a different galaxy doesn’t change any physical laws that I’m aware of. You would have to say that it exists in a different universe altogether.
I don’t believe in religion(s) because they’re so mundane and predictable. It’s painfully obvious that religious stories are made up based on the knowledge of the people who made them up at that time.
The evidence for reality and how the universe really works is so much more amazing and complex. There is no need for religion.
As others have pointed out, totally wrong. A shadow is incorporeal but visible. The classic, horror-movie invisible man is invisible but corporeal–you can touch him, just not see him. My dragon is both invisible and incorporeal.
Sez you. Maybe you just don’t understand the laws of physics. Maybe you don’t know where my dragon is. But it is not bound by your definition of how the world works–it’s my dragon. I’m the one telling you about it–by definition, you cannot tell me about the attributes of my dragon.
Did you pay attention to me describing where my garage was? Also, as in your next quote, you suggest your “god” is somewhere in the universe. But I’ll make it easy for you. My garage is in the same place your “god” is.
Again, as I and others have pointed out: First, your “god” seems very unlike all the gods I’ve heard about, who seem to interfere on this little blue speck on a daily basis. Second, you don’t know what the laws of physics are in the place where my dragon resides.
Again, you have just assumed my garage is on earth. I just assumed when you were talking about “god” you meant something similar to what every religion on earth describes. If you want me to accept your definition of “god,” that’s fine (though how you distinguish a god like the one you’re describing from a non-godly resident of the same area beats me)–but if you want me to do that, you have to accept that my garage is in the same place your god is.
Why did the higher order take 14 billion years to get to this point? Hell, it might have even taken longer if there are other older universes. Lots of shit can happen in 14 billion years “by a quirk”. I hope “by a quirk” doesn’t mean that everything showed up randomly. The universe goes by a very strict set of rules and everything that is here now has been selected for being here now.
The higher order you’re describing is simply having the properties of being stable enough to exist. I’m not an astronomer but I suppose that if the universe expanded too quickly, stars wouldn’t have formed. Then no nebula. Then no planets. If it didn’t expand enough, it would have collapsed on itself?
So it took a while to get here but we’re here because we’re here.
No, it is irrational. The fact that we do not understand everything, and may not be able to understand everything, does not rationally lead to a “higher power” unless you define it in tautological terms: God is what we don’t understand, we don’t understand everything, so therefore there is a God.
But you’ll notice I didn’t say there IS a God. I agree that is not a rational conclusion to reach. But there could be. It’s very unlikely that it would be the man with the long white beard who lives in the clouds, but some kind of power that is beyond the reach of our science and that we can’t fully understand? That doesn’t sound any more far-fetched than an infinite universe, to me anyway.
And I get what you’re saying about how we would define “God”, but I’m talking about an actual entity of some sort. It goes without saying that we don’t understand everything, and I agree that that alone does not prove that there’s a god (nor does anything PROVE it, I just don’t think it’s irrational to think that it’s more likely than some specific mythical thing like invisible pink unicorns).
Anyway, I was raised Catholic and still have the guilt to show for it. I haven’t been religious at all in many years, but I know I still have some issues stemming from it, so I realize that plays a part in my views. So I’m not saying that I’m right and anyone who disagrees is wrong, I’m just trying to explore the subject further.
You could be right. Well, like I said, my wanting to believe in the possibility of some kind of afterlife is not rooted in rationality. That’s what makes me WANT to believe in a higher power. What makes me think that it could actually be true instead of just wishful thinking is the fact that there’s so much about the universe that we can’t understand. But I suppose that if I didn’t care one way or the other, I wouldn’t even bother thinking about it.
I don’t know how to cope with someone close to me dying if I think for sure they’re just gone and there’s nothing else. I don’t know how to cope with it even if I DO believe in an afterlife (I’ve never had someone close die but it has to happen evetually and I worry about it a lot), but even more if I don’t.
All those scenarios are hypothetical - made up - with equal evidence to back them up (that is, none, and with no apparent way of advancing the evidence). In that case, it’s perfectly rational to assign them all the same probability. Doing anything else is AFAICS irrational.
The question really is; how much probability do you give an IPU?
Well, I would say that the fact that there are things about the universe that we could never hope to understand is evidence that there could be powers we can’t understand. That power being an invisible pink unicorn is less likely than it existing at all, unless you believe that there’s absolutely ZERO chance that anything of the sort could exist (or that if it does exist it HAS to be an invisible pink unicorn, I suppose)