# Believers: Why are you so sure of your beliefs? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 21, 2010, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965 "2010-06-21T07:47:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![KellyCriterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2010, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/301 "2010-07-06T13:48:14Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > At least as complex as us, naturally; we are obviously the bottom rung when it comes to sentience. And you can forget any nonsense about not being “restricted by such material and spatial limitations”; _without some sort of restrictions, some sort of rules it cant have any structure at all_. Wow! No structure, no restrictions, no rules?! You mean no.. _complexity_? Such entities sound _far_ less complex than any sentient entity I’ve encountered! > [@](#): > > Sentience requires an underlying substrate. It certainly appears that way inside the universe, but if you’re applying this claim to any sentience whatsoever, inside the universe or otherwise, then, “cite please”. ---
**Author:** ![peledre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/779978/32.png) [@peledre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peledre)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2010, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/302 "2010-07-06T13:48:40Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > If we’re talking inside the universe, sure. Just to form an _idea_ requires a freakin’ myriad of chemical reactions to take place properly and in the correct order, as well as traverse any required spatial distance that the firing neurons of the mind help facilitate. So yep, that’s damn complex, and we’re only scratching the surface. > > As for entities that aren’t restricted by such material and spatial limitations, I have no idea what kind of complexity sentience requires. Perhaps you can enlighten us? You’d really like to have your cake and eat it to wouldn’t you? ---
**Author:** ![KellyCriterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2010, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/303 "2010-07-06T13:50:42Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > Not “shooting up the wrong path”, more like “cutting you off at the pass”. Otherwise, what kind of second-rate God would it be, if it could create a universe from nothing, but couldn’t fashion a mere human being without billions of alterations? I’m not following you. If what you’re saying is “Oh whoops, I thought you were some sort of Christian creationist, _time for me to perform a bit of smoke and mirrors in the hope that nobody notices my flub!_”, then, cool. Impressive 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2010, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/304 "2010-07-06T14:11:03Z")
> [@peledre](#): > > You’d really like to have your cake and eat it to wouldn’t you? I see this more and more, where religionists can no longer refer to the old style “God Of The Gaps”, and have switched to the “God Of The Vague”. If they don’t describe(at least in public) aspects of their deity, those aspects can’t be examined. ---
**Author:** ![KellyCriterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2010, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/305 "2010-07-06T14:22:12Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I see this more and more, where religionists can no longer refer to the old style “God Of The Gaps”, and have switched to the “God Of The Vague”. If they don’t describe(at least in public) aspects of their deity, those aspects can’t be examined. I can’t tell you a whole lot about the entity itself, because I don’t know much about it. I simply see the product of its handiwork. Yep, you disagree - but the point I would like to stress is, I am not being deliberately vague so that my detractors have a minimal amount of meat to try and make a meal with, I am being vague because I just don’t have any strong understanding about the hows and whys of the entity whose existence I am inclined to believe in. I speculate the entity is a creator/designer that is immaterial, timeless, and powerful. I can’t offer up much more. ---
**Author:** ![peledre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/779978/32.png) [@peledre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peledre)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2010, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/306 "2010-07-06T14:42:47Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > I speculate the entity is a creator/designer that is immaterial, timeless, and powerful. I can’t offer up much more. Your logic is so screwed up and full of holes it’s hard to even call it logic. Time is required to effect change, therefore something which is timeless couldn’t change, create, or destroy anything. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2010, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/307 "2010-07-06T14:42:53Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > I can’t tell you a whole lot about the entity itself, because I don’t know much about it. > > I simply see the product of its handiwork. > > Yep, you disagree - but the point I would like to stress is, I am not being deliberately vague so that my detractors have a minimal amount of meat to try and make a meal with, I am being vague because I just don’t have any strong understanding about the hows and whys of the entity whose existence I am inclined to believe in. I speculate the entity is a creator/designer that is immaterial, timeless, and powerful. I can’t offer up much more. And where did you get "immaterial’ and “timeless” from your interpretation that most all things in nature seem to be designed? Be careful there-you are presenting aspects that can be examined logically. ---
**Author:** ![peledre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/779978/32.png) [@peledre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peledre)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2010, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/308 "2010-07-06T14:46:04Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I see this more and more, where religionists can no longer refer to the old style “God Of The Gaps”, and have switched to the “God Of The Vague”. If they don’t describe(at least in public) aspects of their deity, those aspects can’t be examined. The guy says that we can’t define its properties because we can’t observe it, then he goes on to define its properties, it doesn’t get any better than that. ---
**Author:** ![KellyCriterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2010, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/309 "2010-07-07T12:56:42Z")
> [@peledre](#): > > Your logic is so screwed up and full of holes it’s hard to even call it logic. > > Time is required to effect change, therefore something which is timeless couldn’t change, create, or destroy anything. Of course it could, as long as the timeless entity itself doesn’t undergo change. ---
**Author:** ![KellyCriterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2010, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/310 "2010-07-07T13:00:24Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > And where did you get "immaterial’ and “timeless” from your interpretation that most all things in nature seem to be designed? Be careful there-you are presenting aspects that can be examined logically. I don’t believe the sum of finite things (such as seconds) can equal infinite. Maybe it’s possible, but it seems far too illogical for me to accept. If my assumption is true, then we could “rewind” the universe back to it’s immediate starting point, of which nothing exists prior. I don’t believe that nothing can cause universes to come in to existence, hence, I believe something caused it. Now, if this “something” is a material entity, then it’s bound by time. I reject that time stretches back “forever” for reasons already stated, hence, I conclude the entity that designed/created the universe is a _timeless, immaterial_ entity. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2010, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/311 "2010-07-07T14:07:17Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > Of course it could, as long as the timeless entity itself doesn’t undergo change. So what did this timeless entity do before she/he/it decided to create the universe? Where did she/he/it acquire the knowledge to do this? _Why do you consider a timeless entity with infinite intelligence more probable than an infinite universe that constantly creates and destroys itself, considering that there is no evidence(outside of your own need to see patterns where none might exist) for such an entity?_ ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2010, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/312 "2010-07-07T14:09:43Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > Now, if this “something” is a material entity, then it’s bound by time. I reject that time stretches back “forever” for reasons already stated, hence, I conclude the entity that designed/created the universe is a _timeless, immaterial_ entity. Are you using a definition of 'immaterial" that I am unaware of? If this entity is immaterial, how can it touch, and if it cannot touch, how can it affect anything? ---
**Author:** ![Gustav](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/919ad9/32.png) [@Gustav](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gustav)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2010, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/313 "2010-07-07T14:17:57Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > I don’t believe the sum of finite things (such as seconds) can equal infinite. Maybe it’s possible, but it seems far too illogical for me to accept. I don’t understand why this give you any problems at all. An infinite series will always approach infinity as long as the individual terms don’t tend to zero, and sometimes even then. I’ve known some people to have difficulty grasping how an infinite series can have a finite limit, but never the opposite. An infinite number of finite units = infinity. ---
**Author:** ![peledre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/779978/32.png) [@peledre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peledre)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2010, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/314 "2010-07-07T14:33:06Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > Of course it could, as long as the timeless entity itself doesn’t undergo change. Nope. Any manipulation would require a change of state in the entity, which would require time. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2010, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/315 "2010-07-07T14:36:49Z")
How can anything change something else, and not be changed itself? ---
**Author:** ![KellyCriterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2010, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/316 "2010-07-07T14:50:20Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > So what did this timeless entity do before she/he/it decided to create the universe? A timeless entity has no “before” or “after”. Before and after require _time_. > [@](#): > > Where did she/he/it acquire the knowledge to do this? If the “knowledge” possessed by the entity was “acquired”, that means at some point, the entity did not possess such knowledge. The act of moving from an unknowledgeable state to a knowledgeable invokes time, violating the entity from being in a timeless state. > [@](#): > > _Why do you consider a timeless entity with infinite intelligence more probable than an infinite universe that constantly creates and destroys itself, considering that there is no evidence(outside of your own need to see patterns where none might exist) for such an entity?_ If the universe has been constantly creating and destroying itself, then it has existed forever, meaning the sum of all seconds is infinite. I reject that the total sum of some finite thing can equal infinite. ---
**Author:** ![KellyCriterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2010, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/317 "2010-07-07T14:53:39Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Are you using a definition of 'immaterial" that I am unaware of? If this entity is immaterial, how can it touch, and if it cannot touch, how can it affect anything? Start by dropping every assumption about touch/influence/affect that you’ve got as a result of existing inside the universe, operating in material and spatial dimensions while all the while being bound by time. You’re trying to compare what it would be like to exist in a timeless, immaterial state to what it’s like to exist here in the universe and thus having to deal with space, time and matter. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2010, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/318 "2010-07-07T14:53:48Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > Now, if this “something” is a material entity, then it’s bound by time. I reject that time stretches back “forever” for reasons already stated, hence, I conclude the entity that designed/created the universe is a _timeless, immaterial_ entity. **Vinny** **Gambini** : How could it take you five minutes to cook your grits when it takes the entire grit-eating world 20 minutes? **Mr. Tipton** : Um… I’m a fast cook, I guess. **Vinny Gambini** : What? I’m sorry I was over there. Did you just say you were a fast cook? Are we to believe that boiling water soaks into a grit faster in your kitchen than any place on the face of the earth? **Mr. Tipton:** I don’t know. **Vinny Gambini:** Perhaps the laws of physics cease to exist on your stove. Were these magic grits? ---
**Author:** ![KellyCriterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2010, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/319 "2010-07-07T14:55:37Z")
> [@Gustav](#): > > I don’t understand why this give you any problems at all. An infinite series will always approach infinity as long as the individual terms don’t tend to zero, and sometimes even then. I’ve known some people to have difficulty grasping how an infinite series can have a finite limit, but never the opposite. > > An infinite number of finite units = infinity. That’s just clever wordplay. I don’t accept you can have “an infinite number of finite units”. Secondly, your statement about “approaching infinite” sounds close without the cigar. Please give an example of something that sums to infinite that exists in actuality. ---
**Author:** ![KellyCriterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2010, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/320 "2010-07-07T14:58:39Z")
> [@peledre](#): > > Nope. Any manipulation would require a change of state in the entity, which would require time. In other words, you know how immaterial entities affect change? Please describe the process for us. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965.md?page=17)