Believers: Why are you so sure of your beliefs?

[peledre]

@Thudlow_Boink

If you (Czarcasm, or anyone else) do indeed think that existence—or at least the kind of existence that allows an entity to effect/affect material things—is impossible without having space, time, and matter, I may be able to disprove this by offering, as a counterexample, the relationship of an author to his or her literary creations…

I believe the book itself occupies a physical space.

[Blalron]

@Thudlow_Boink

But Kelly’s second sentence that you quoted isn’t Q; it’s ~Q.

(And modus tollens is a perfectly valid form of argument.)

I admit I’m only a “dabbler” in the subject of logic and not an expert.

Looking at it more closely: KellyCriterion made a valid deductive argument in that specific post that I quoted. And of course, deductive arguments are true, assuming the premises are true.

My problem is this: just because he can posit the existence of a timeless, immaterial entity doesn’t establish that this entity exists.

Hopefully I’m not creating a Strawman here, but if I could summarize KellyCriterion’s argument for the existence of God into a syllogism, it would be this:

1. A timeless, immaterial entity not bound by the known laws of physics could create the universe.
2. The universe exists.
3. Therefore, the universe was created by a timeless immaterial entity not bound by the known laws of physics.

[cosmosdan]

I think it’s clear that there are things we do not know and things we will not know in the near future. The existence of a supreme being, ultimate creative source, god, is one of them. We as humans operate daily on some type of faith and it is our nature to go forward based on what we believe to be true, and hopefully, contune to grow and learn throughout our lifetime.

Several years ago in one of our many religious discussions Voyager presented the idea that religious beliefs should be held provisionally, in that we operate with the understanding that we have a lot to learn and are willing to discard components of our belief system as new information presents itself. I find this concept to be a very practical and useful one.

We simultaneously claim the right to pursue our own individual belief system, with some components shared with others and some not, and, we acknowledge that our beleif system is flawed and limited by our own limits of human nature and human understanding. Hopefully the recognition of those limits, that all men hold in common, encourages us to have the humility to not insist our own chosen path has to be the right one for others as well.
Nothing about God belief or a lack of god belief needs to hinder our interaction here in this life until we try to force all or part of our own belief system on others. We will do this on some regular basis regardless of any religion simply because of subjective differences in how we view morality and what is right or wrong.

So, per the OP, in the big picture I don’t think believers can truly be so sure of their belief system and it’s unfortunate that so many feel such a strong need to be so sure that they close off thier mind and hearts to certain input.
I’ll repeat one of my favorite quotes
“We are drawn to the light and make the mistake of worshipping the lamp” THat’s part of what causes religions to be dogmatic and to cling to tradition and doctrine as if it were the light they experienced through religion.
I suspect this is in part born of fear. The fear that if they release one aspect of thier belief system, if they admit one aspect is incorrect , the entire thing will crumble. Many of us have had the experience to know that isn’t nessecarily true. We can, and IMHO are more prone to progress , when we accept that we cannot be sure, are willing to learn and change, but faithfully lay claim to our individual right to hold a belief system that works for us as an individual.

[Czarcasm]

@peledre

I believe the book itself occupies a physical space.

And the words, made of ink, take up physical space in that book. The author, a material being, used electrical impulses from his material brain to first think of what to write, and then to move his muscles to type the words onto a mechanical contraption.

[Czarcasm]

@Thudlow_Boink

If you (Czarcasm, or anyone else) do indeed think that existence—or at least the kind of existence that allows an entity to effect/affect material things—is impossible without having space, time, and matter, I may be able to disprove this by offering, as a counterexample, the relationship of an author to his or her literary creations.

From the perspective of Middle Earth, for example, J.R.R. Tolkien is “immaterial.” Tolkien does not exist at any particular point of Middle Earth space or time. But you wouldn’t say that Tolkien had no effect on Middle Earth.

I’m not sure how good a counterexample this is. You may object that, really, it’s Middle Earth that’s immaterial, not Tolkien. But whether or not my example holds up logically, it does, at least, help me break through a barrier against imagining how an entity outside the material world could have an effect on it.

We have evidence of the existence of our material world. We have no evidence at all that the imaginary world that Mr. Tolkien created exists outside of his(and now our) imagination. Until evidence is brought forth, we have just this much evidence of the existence of either immaterial deities and the “no space” they may or may not reside in.

[Czarcasm]

@KellyCriterion

So drumroll… will Czarcasm produce some evidence that existence outside of space/time is not possible? Or will he just baselessly reassert, again, that such existence is not possible, and to hell with presenting any evidence to back up this claim!

Tune in soon to find out!

I admit it.
I have no evidence that existence outside of space/time is not possible.
This is because you have yet to give us any properties of this “outside space/time” to refute! What the hell is “outside space/time”? When the hell is “outside space/time?” Where the hell is “outside space/time”?
You’ve latched onto a term that has no explanation, thinking that you have built a shield to protect your “immaterial entity”, but all you’ve done is wrapped your nonsense in silliness.

[woodstockbirdybird]

@KellyCriterion

Czarcasm, I am tired of having to respond to your endless unbacked assertions.

If you think existence is impossible without having space, time and matter, then please show some evidence.

Why should he? He’s not the one claiming the possibility of something there is no evidence for. You should be the one to show some evidence that it is possible. As has been stated about a billion times, I can come up with all kinds of goofy hypotheticals (FSM, IPU, etc. etc.) to explain things that you can’t disprove; that doesn’t make them probable, much less likely. You’re the one using imaginary concepts to explain the universe.

[monavis]

@Czarcasm

And I have no problem with this(as long as they keep their beliefs personal, and not try to make them mandatory for others). But when try to assert that, using misapplied terms and bogus definitions, that science and logic support their beliefs, I feel a need to question.

I am with you on that. One is free to believe anything…religious or not. When it is factual it can be proven sooner or later! Faith doesn’t use facts! They can have some logicial reason why they believe, but the reason doesn’t necessarily contain truth.

[cosmosdan]

@woodstockbirdybird

Why should he? He’s not the one claiming the possibility of something there is no evidence for. You should be the one to show some evidence that it is possible. As has been stated about a billion times, I can come up with all kinds of goofy hypotheticals (FSM, IPU, etc. etc.) to explain things that you can’t disprove; that doesn’t make them probable, much less likely. You’re the one using imaginary concepts to explain the universe.

but evidence is only required if someone is trying to convince somebody that such a being exists right? If you choose to believe in god and hold that as personal without insisting everybody else must believe, then no evidence is required right?

[Czarcasm]

@cosmosdan

but evidence is only required if someone is trying to convince somebody that such a being exists right? If you choose to believe in god and hold that as personal without insisting everybody else must believe, then no evidence is required right?

All the more reason to just say that you have no evidence, rather than try the “Baffle them with bullshit” ploy. While I could never go the “blind faith” route, it is a lot more honest than misapplying science.

[Thudlow_Boink]

@Czarcasm

I admit it.
I have no evidence that existence outside of space/time is not possible.
This is because you have yet to give us any properties of this “outside space/time” to refute! What the hell is “outside space/time”? When the hell is “outside space/time?” Where the hell is “outside space/time”?
You’ve latched onto a term that has no explanation, thinking that you have built a shield to protect your “immaterial entity”, but all you’ve done is wrapped your nonsense in silliness.

What I was attempting to do, with my book/author example, was to show how something or someone could be “outside space/time”: that a deity could be “outside space/time” by being in a relationship to our world that is in some way analogous to, say, Tolkien’s relationship to Middle Earth.

I cannot speak for KellyCriterion, but the only thing I am trying to argue for or persuade anybody of here is that the idea of an entity existing outside of space and time is not nonsense—not to argue or give evidence for such existence nor to try to describe what it actually consists of.

[Gustav]

@cosmosdan

but evidence is only required if someone is trying to convince somebody that such a being exists right? If you choose to believe in god and hold that as personal without insisting everybody else must believe, then no evidence is required right?

Why wouldn’t it be…?

[cosmosdan]

@Gustav

Why wouldn’t it be…?

Why would it be?

If someone decides to believe in god but doesn’t try to impose that belief on anyone else why would evidence be required? It’s their personal belief and they are not asking anyone to agree or approve
" I believe in god"
“Can you offer any evidence of such a being”
“Nope”
“You have no evidence?”
“I have no evidence, I just choose to believe”
“Isn’t that irrational?”
“It works for me, if it doesn’t work for you make your own choice about what to believe”

There are things we don’t know, won’t know in the foreseeable future, and IMO don’t need to know. One person believes and another doesn’t. So what? What matters is our day to day interaction with the world we live in.

[cosmosdan]

@Czarcasm

All the more reason to just say that you have no evidence, rather than try the “Baffle them with bullshit” ploy. While I could never go the “blind faith” route, it is a lot more honest than misapplying science.

I agree.

[Czarcasm]

@Thudlow_Boink

What I was attempting to do, with my book/author example, was to show how something or someone could be “outside space/time”: that a deity could be “outside space/time” by being in a relationship to our world that is in some way analogous to, say, Tolkien’s relationship to Middle Earth.

I cannot speak for KellyCriterion, but the only thing I am trying to argue for or persuade anybody of here is that the idea of an entity existing outside of space and time is not nonsense—not to argue or give evidence for such existence nor to try to describe what it actually consists of.

But all you have shown that “no space” is a real as “Middle Earth”-not at all. It is thought without fact.

[KellyCriterion]

@Czarcasm

I admit it.
I have no evidence that existence outside of space/time is not possible.
This is because you have yet to give us any properties of this “outside space/time” to refute!

I don’t need to. You’ve already claimed that existence outside of space/time is impossible. Either you already have all the information you need to make your absolute statements about existence, or you’ve flubbed.

So, either change your answer to “I don’t know if existence outside of space/time is impossible”, or, show the evidence to the contrary.

Here, I’ll even help you out. Forget about “outside of space/time”, just show us the evidence that space and time are pre-requisites for existence. Naturally, any argument that pre-supposes that space and time are needed for existence will be disregarded. Likewise, unbacked assertions such as “you can’t have existence without space and time” will likewise be disregarded, for patently obvious reasons.

We’re up to page 8 here, Czarcasm. Show some evidence already!

[KellyCriterion]

@woodstockbirdybird

Why should he? He’s not the one claiming the possibility of something there is no evidence for. You should be the one to show some evidence that it is possible.

Me: I don’t know for sure if existence outside of space/time is possible.
Czarcasm: I know for sure whether existence outside of space/time is possible.

On whom lies the burden of proof, as far as woodstockbirdybird is concerned?

On me, apparently.

As has been stated about a billion times, I can come up with all kinds of goofy hypotheticals (FSM, IPU, etc. etc.) to explain things that you can’t disprove; that doesn’t make them probable, much less likely. You’re the one using imaginary concepts to explain the universe.

And I say I’m not using imaginary concepts to explain the universe. (I’m getting good at this game, I’ve already been playing it with Der Trihs and Czarcasm).

Your turn.

[ivan_astikov]

@cosmosdan

but evidence is only required if someone is trying to convince somebody that such a being exists right? If you choose to believe in god and hold that as personal without insisting everybody else must believe, then no evidence is required right?

I’d along with that. It’s like believing that the plants in your garden are actually put there by elves and pixies. You can make whatever justifications, rationalisations, etc you want to reinforce your belief, but the second you try to convince others of your beliefs, you are going to have problems, because in the Real World, “I believe it is so.” doesn’t cut it.

[Latro]

I believe Kelly.
The entity which he thinks created earth is called Uranos, and he did create our universe. Of course Uranos( and the others like him) too was created, by the immaterial pink entities that live in “deep non space”. Which were themselves created by an entity that dwells in the darkest netherregions of “negative dark no space”. But of him you had better not speak, lest you awaken the Old Ones…

[monavis]

Kelly…I wonder is no space, nowhere? If it is some where, then it must be something,If it is something it had a beginning…or did it? In order to exist something must be in existence or it doesn’t exist.