# Culture War - Religious cannot win a debate so they start a war. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 12, 2006, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/culture-war-religious-cannot-win-a-debate-so-they-start-a-war/383864 "2006-12-12T20:24:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2006, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/culture-war-religious-cannot-win-a-debate-so-they-start-a-war/383864/241 "2006-12-21T05:03:37Z")
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold] Because God has reasons to want to make himself known and understood. A non-god involving universe has no motivation to make itself understood; it has no motivation at all. [/QUOTE] Your proposing all or nothing. I don’t see why. [QUOTE=Revenant Threshold] It doesn’t matter. I’m not saying that a universe with unknowable things in is impossible or even unlikely. I’m saying that if the Christian God created a universe with unknowable things, and acts in a way we cannot even begin to comprehend, that that contradicts his goal of getting people to know him and means evil ensues from the inevitable clashes between factions that disagree on their understanding. [/QUOTE] You’re presupposing to know what his golas are and the rate he thinks best man grasp the amount of knowledge (1-100%) that he disires them to. [QUOTE=Revenant Threshold] As an omnipotent being, he could do what he wants in a way that we are able to understand; that he deliberately chooses not to would not be a benevolent decision. [/QUOTE] Since we do not know the grand plan I don’t see how you can decide if any decision is good, bad, benevolent, or cruel. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2006, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/culture-war-religious-cannot-win-a-debate-so-they-start-a-war/383864/242 "2006-12-21T05:26:22Z")
[QUOTE=magellan01] Your proposing all or nothing. I don’t see why. [/quote] Sort of. I’m suggesting that if God’s desire is to make himself known, that is better accomplished by performing acts we can understand. Now, for your average person there’s the possibility that in order to get one thing, we might have to comprimise on something else; God doesn’t have that problem, so I think it’s fair to say each step towards the unknowable is pretty unnecessary. Would he want to be totally known? I’d think so, and i’ll get into that. > [@](#): > > You’re presupposing to know what his golas are and the rate he thinks best man grasp the amount of knowledge (1-100%) that he disires them to. You’re correct. I’m assuming God wants to be known, which doesn’t seem all that silly. The only other ideas would be if God actively doesn’t want to be known, which is totally incompatible with, well, that he is actually known. On the other hand, he might be indifferent as to whether people know about him, but that seems incompatible with the proseylatizing efforts of Jesus (assuming he had a good idea of what God was on about). So we’re left with God wanting to be known. You also suggest that it’s not a matter of wanting to be fully understood, but possibly only partially. That’s perfectly possible; maybe God wants to keep things about himself hidden from us. Of course, the problem with that one is; why would he want to keep things hidden? There’s plenty of reasons not to; any kind of point which isn’t clear is going to be debated (in the best case) or fought over (in the worst) which kinda detracts from the whole love-thy-neighbour business. And, of course, by keeping some facet of himself unknowable, God leaves room for suspicious people to say “What’s he trying to hide?”. And if God’s unknowable on some issues, how do we know we’ve got the right end of the stick on the things we think we _do_ know about him? Maybe he meant to literally love thy neighbour but to hell with the rest of them. Leaving himself unknowable on some issues means he’s so on all. > [@](#): > > Since we do not know the grand plan I don’t see how you can decide if any decision is good, bad, benevolent, or cruel. Except on faith, I suppose, as you do. 😉 But this is a good point. If we don’t know the grand plan, how can we decide if we want to follow him or not? You wouldn’t sign a contract without reading it. Why would we sign on the dotted line if we not only can’t read the contract, but we can’t evaluate the other party? It’s just not attractive business, and I think if we can agree on one thing it is that the Christian God would want people to be Christians. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2006, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/culture-war-religious-cannot-win-a-debate-so-they-start-a-war/383864/243 "2006-12-21T05:45:20Z")
[QUOTE=hotflungwok] After a bit of thinking, I’ve kind of realized something. I don’t care whether you personally have made the assertion or not. My statement is blanket, it applies to anyone who believes in god. I don’t really care if you do or not, so I’m not really arguing against you personally. Religion itself makes the claim that there’s a god, and that what I’m arguing against. [/QUOTE] okey dokey \ > [@](#): > > I’m not making a claim about the existance of god, i’m making a claim about the evidence of god’s existance. The whole argument really kind of hinges on this. If there is any objective evidence that god exists, then it all falls apart. There’s no point in continuing this otherwise. As I said, some will argue intelligent design and insist that creation itself is evidence. I realize we know a lot about the earth but there are still unanswered questions. Still, for the sake of this discussion lets say for the moment that there is no objective evidence at this time. > [@](#): > > So, if there is no objective evidence of god’s existance, then why believe in him? The idea of god is very illogical claim. God is attributed many unrealistic things. If someone were to make a claim equally as illogical but whole non-religious, people would expect some really good evidence supporting it. But god is given a ‘get out of logic’ pass for some reason. I certainly think beliefs should be examined and scientific objective evidence must be considered. Some brilliant minds throughout history have had various views about the possibility of God and and the details about God. Not everyone has embraced the bearded man in the sky who judges us and deals out reward and punishment. You seem to be speaking of a specific concept of God. Your argument reminds me of The End of Faith by Sam Harris. Excellent book. Given the way society has developed I don’t think it’s illogical or irrational for people to believe. I think there’s a slow natural process taking place as scientific knowledge becomes more available and I see the nature of spiritual beliefs changing. The kind of scientific knowledge needed to dispel certain myths hasn’t been around all that long and it takes generations for it to displace long held traditions. Religious beliefs have a certain insulation. I think the fact that so many do believe gives it weight even though it’s not objective evidence. Think about it. I’ve never been to Austrailia but I believe it’s there because of what I’ve been taught and the fact that it’s a widely accepted fact. You can’t realistically expect everyone to examine the evidence in detail and make a “logical” accessment. > [@](#): > > Of course, there are lots of people who say they’ve experienced god, but all of their experiences seem to be of the ‘it was personal and you weren’t there I just know’ kind of experiences. And these people can’t even agree on what they experienced or even believe about him. Some of them say he says they should hate, some of them say he says they should love, some of them say he says it’s okay to kill people, etc. You would think, with the attributes god is given, there would be some consistency, and less appearance of personal interpretation. Not exactly the kind of evidence you’re looking for in a claim like god. Imagine a radio station broadcasting the same signal a very consistant message to everyone. The problem is everyone hasn’t figured out how to tune in their receiver. Compound that problem with those who feel sure they are understanding the message when in fact they’ve corrupted it with their own feelings and agendas. Compound it still more with those who want to manipulate those who are trying to tune in. It is confusing and I understand people choosing to believe there is no broadcast. Being one who has exoerienced the power and mystery of tuning in I also understand those who continue to believe. > [@](#): > > So we have people believing in something for which they have at best subjective evidence for. That doesn’t sound right at all. If people believe that there are little green men visiting us in flying saucers, they tend to be viewed as a bit crazy. If people believe that saying certain things and wiggling your fingers a certain way causes magical things to happen, they tend to be viewed as a little crazy. But when people believe there is an all powerful invisible being who created the entire universe (but didn’t need to be created cuz he’s eternal) that they can talk to and he will answer them (but it might not be the answer they want) and he loves everyone (unless you do the things on this list), and suddenly it’s ok. Well, I don’t think it’s ok. I think should they should be held to same standard that everyone else is. And that standard says that if you hold as true something for which there is no good evidence, then you are at least a little crazy. No, I don’t mean that they should be locked up in a room with padded wallpaper. I mean they should be treated the same way a person who believes in flying saucers or magical spells or psychic powers is: a bit crazy. Plenty of people believe in ghosts and others believe in aliens abd while others may scoff or disbelieve they don’t always think these people are a little crazy. I think the point is how does that belief affect their lives and in turn the lives of others. IN that regard I completely agree. We do need to challenge beliefs that adversly effect the lives of others. I think it is action that brings the belief into question. As I said before , if someone’s belief in God prompts them to feed the poor then I see no need to question that belief. However religion should not be a sheild for bad behavior. > [@](#): > > Now, we have the idea that people are allowed to believe what they want without having to prove it, inside their own head. That’s fine, I’m all for it. But belief in god hasn’t been confined to people’s head for a very long time. There are huge powerful organizations built around the idea. They don’t leave it up to the individual, they tell people what they should believe. If you are X, then you believe Y. Someone being Christian implies that they believe god exists. Christianity itself is an assertion that god exists. Yeah and… what? When you say in their heads are you implying that no one should ever speak their beliefs out loud unless they have objective evidence to prove them. Comon! I mean really. What are you suggesting as a solution? I agree that religious beliefs should not be off limits as far as open discussion and objective examination. I still maintain that we need to respect people’s right to choose their beliefs while making sure those beliefs do not threaten or oppress others. > [@](#): > > I thought about this for while too. And I still haven’t decided. While I can see that people who don’t have access to all the science and stuff that would help show them that god might not exist, there still had to be a point where someone approached them and said ‘god exists’ and they agreed. I would like to think that people would be rational enought to require evidence for that kind of claim, but I can see how less civilized societies might have much lower standards of evidence and logic. My point is that since the question of God’s existance cannot be answered conclusively it’s okay for people to come down on the believe side. The specific details of theiur belief and how those beliefs affect others is a seperate issue. Thats why I think it’s the actions that should be examined first. > [@](#): > > First, why should religion be allowed this exception and other things not given so much slack. And second, the huge powerful organizations I mentioned have for the most part supplanted the ‘personal’ part of religion. Its the religious organizations that tell you what you believe. Sure, there might be some individual variation, but the main tenets, such as the existance of god, don’t change. You read my post incorrectly. I said since the subjective experience is almost all of the spiritual journey then believers should not expect to prove their beliefs to others, nor should they insist that everyone believes exactly as they do. Even people that belong to major religions and specific denominatins do not all believe the same thing. You need to do the research before you make blanket assertions like that. Isn’t that what you’re demanding of believers? > [@](#): > > While people do draw conclusions from subjective experiences, it’s a matter of degree, and of evidence. Say you get an itch on you leg and stop to scratch it and an out of control car flies up into the spot you would have been at had you not stopped. This is a subjective experience, and you can draw one of several conclusions. You can conclude that god caused the itch and saved your life. You can also conclude that it was just a coincidence. The first conclusions is a huge leap logically, considering that have no real evidence for it. The second conclusion is not a very big leap, and since you have no evidence that anything else was involved, and is probably a good one. It isn’t necessarily the right conclusion, but given what you know it’s the best you can do. This isn’t really an act of faith, but of logic. You are misunderstanding the application of subjective evidence. > [@](#): > > This is still an appeal to popularity. It really depends on the claim. If 100 people tell me that Snickers bars are good, I’ll try one. If 100 people tell me that god exists, I’m going to go look for some evidence. The type of claim determines the kind of evidence needed to support it, and since god is such a huge claim, its going to need to huge evidence. I don’t agree. Spiritual beliefs have a long history and tradition and there are millions of believers from all classes and intellects and are changing. You’re saying without sufficient evidence non belief should be the default. Perhaps without hundreds of years of religious tradition and influence that might be realistic. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2006, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/culture-war-religious-cannot-win-a-debate-so-they-start-a-war/383864/244 "2006-12-21T06:23:19Z")
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold] Sort of. I’m suggesting that if God’s desire is to make himself known, that is better accomplished by performing acts we can understand. Now, for your average person there’s the possibility that in order to get one thing, we might have to comprimise on something else; God doesn’t have that problem, so I think it’s fair to say each step towards the unknowable is pretty unnecessary. Would he want to be totally known? [/QUOTE] One could say that the amount of “knowability” is precisely where he thinks it should be. Also, if God popped onto the airways and performed a few miracles for all to see, eliminating all doubt as to his existence, that kind of does away with “faith”. Now that might be interesting, seeing how people—who would all be believers—would act. For some reason he chose this scenario, which does make a little more of free will. [QUOTE=Revenant Threshold] You’re correct. I’m assuming God wants to be known, which doesn’t seem all that silly. The only other ideas would be if God actively doesn’t want to be known, which is totally incompatible with, well, that he is actually known. On the other hand, he might be indifferent as to whether people know about him, but that seems incompatible with the proseylatizing efforts of Jesus (assuming he had a good idea of what God was on about). So we’re left with God wanting to be known. [/QUOTE] Agreed. The question is then to what degree and at what rate he will dial up the “knowability” (if at all). [QUOTE=Revenant Threshold] You also suggest that it’s not a matter of wanting to be fully understood, but possibly only partially. That’s perfectly possible; maybe God wants to keep things about himself hidden from us. Of course, the problem with that one is; why would he want to keep things hidden? [/QUOTE] My guess is that the amount “knowability” is tailor-made for man and the free will he endowed us with. If nothing else, I think you’d agree that its allowed man to show himself at his best and his worst. Maybe that’s the point. [QUOTE=Revenant Threshold] And if God’s unknowable on some issues, how do we know we’ve got the right end of the stick on the things we think we _do_ know about him? Maybe he meant to literally love thy neighbour but to hell with the rest of them. Leaving himself unknowable on some issues means he’s so on all. [/QUOTE] Doesn’t that go too far? How about The Ten Commandments? The teachings of Jesus? [QUOTE=Revenant Threshold] But this is a good point. If we don’t know the grand plan, how can we decide if we want to follow him or not? [/QUOTE] Maybe he’s experimenting with the effects of free will. Maybe in another time or another place he dialed up—or down—the degree to which he is known and is looking at the incidence of following him. In the end it is a personal decision. The entities with the experiences and DNA that make each of us who we are each have to choose for ourselves. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2006, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/culture-war-religious-cannot-win-a-debate-so-they-start-a-war/383864/245 "2006-12-21T13:49:45Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by **hotflungwok** > While people do draw conclusions from subjective experiences, it’s a matter of degree, and of evidence. Say you get an itch on you leg and stop to scratch it and an out of control car flies up into the spot you would have been at had you not stopped. This is a subjective experience, and you can draw one of several conclusions. You can conclude that god caused the itch and saved your life. You can also conclude that it was just a coincidence. The first conclusions is a huge leap logically, considering that have no real evidence for it. The second conclusion is not a very big leap, and since you have no evidence that anything else was involved, and is probably a good one. It isn’t necessarily the right conclusion, but given what you know it’s the best you can do. This isn’t really an act of faith, but of logic. I cut this short last night because I was tired. I’m not talking about the subjective evidence of an objective reality. When someone says God is, we don’t know what God represents to them. Supreme being, in itself is still a somewhat vague term. In many ways I think the concept of God represents those unsolved mysteries about us. Where did we come from? Do we have a purpose greater than just survival and reproduction? Does our consciousness or spirit survive the end of our physical body? Those are questions that science has no definitive answers for even though progress has been made. My own subjective experiences have led me to believe there is something more although my beliefs are very different now from the Christianity I once embraced. I think the important part of those subjective experiences are about what our priorities are and what we value. In that believers and non believers can find common ground. When it comes to making value judgements and choosing how our lives affects the lives of others ,everyone acts with a certain amount of faith. That’s the kind of subjective I am talking about. Even though religion does have some beliefs about objective reality, it is more in the subjective realm of “what we truly value and how our choices reflect that” that most of religion lies. There’s plenty of reason to criticize religion in that area as well, but in it all people share a common imperfection. Concerning your ideas about believers being delusional or a little bit crazy. I remember my own process of letting go of certain beliefs. It’s a bit more complicated than reading a science book and saying “Gee I guess my sacred beliefs aren’t true” It’s too deeply rooted in people’s emotions and even their sense of purpose and well being. I don’t think it’s reasonable or realistic to treat it in purely objective terms. Were the people that believed in the Roman Gods delusional or just living within the consciousness of their era? I’m all for challenging people’s beliefs , objective and subjective. I think it stimulates growth. I don’t think it serves any useful purpose to call believers delusional or a little crazy. I don’t think it’s accurate when you consider how belief is so ingrained in our society. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2006, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/culture-war-religious-cannot-win-a-debate-so-they-start-a-war/383864/246 "2006-12-21T13:55:47Z")
[QUOTE=johnny M] Christians worldwide beleive that God has already revealed himself through Jesus. If this is the belief then they need not explain any further. You can accept or reject the teachings. It should not be forced on anyone like the right winged nuts try to impose. I personally beleive that Jesus spoke the truth and his teachings were of love, forgiveness and non-judgemental. The thing that convinced me the most were his disciples. While Jesus was alive these 12 walked, talked, lived and witnessed his miracles yet they were cowards. After Jesus was put to death on the cross they could have said “well thats that” and went back to their normal lives but didn!t. I would really like to know what transformed these cowards into mighty lions willing to suffer horrifing deaths for this man. Maybe this is a new forum, sorry if it is. [/QUOTE] Thats a very interesting point. It would be a new thread. Do we know that all twelve, minus Judas, went on to spread the teachings of Christ? Was it just a few that decided to do so and then recruited the others mentioned in the NT? Paul was the most prolific writer and he was not one of the original twelve. It’s an interesting subject but let’s not hijack this thread for it. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2006, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/culture-war-religious-cannot-win-a-debate-so-they-start-a-war/383864/247 "2006-12-21T14:12:04Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] No such thing as a random impulse, in the sense that if God throws dice he knows ahead of time how it would land. Yes, God knows what his decision will be. The problem is that between the time he knows this and the time it happens, he can’t change his mind. I think you are edging towards the problem of when God makes decisions. See my very first post on this problem for some thoughts about that. And God has to be able to change his mind, or he is not omnipotent. He appears to in the Bible, but he might be lying about his decision. (See Jonah.) Magellan challenged me to disprove his god. I asked for some properties, and he gave both omnipotence and omniscience. If your god doesn’t have these properties, he’s not disproven by this problem. Which was my point - we can’t disprove all possible gods, but need characteristics of gods. You are right, if God cannot lie then he is not omnipotent, but I’ve not seen many Christians who claim this, so I don’t think it is a problem. Some do say that God for some reason cannot offer salvation except through Jesus, which is incompatible with an omnipotent god. Never having been socialized into this concept, it is one I just don’t get. The only way around this problem I see is if God is truly timeless - that is, for God, everything happens at once. I don’t quite see how omnipotence works in this model, since all decisions are frozen in amber in a sense. [/QUOTE] I think that’s the quality I was thinking of. Timeless. It’s pretty hard to grasp but IMHO things happen or don’t happen as a matter of spiritual condition rather than on any time related basis. God is consistently true to his nature which is love and truth. We have the ability to be in that nature fully but choose not to consciously or unconsciously. God may know every sparrow every blade of grass every hair on my head..{I wish he’d put some back} but it’s spiritual condition that translates into changes what we perceive as changes in physical reality and linear time. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2006, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/culture-war-religious-cannot-win-a-debate-so-they-start-a-war/383864/248 "2006-12-21T14:18:37Z")
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold] Because God has reasons to want to make himself known and understood. A non-god involving universe has no motivation to make itself understood; it has no motivation at all. It doesn’t matter. I’m not saying that a universe with unknowable things in is impossible or even unlikely. I’m saying that if the Christian God created a universe with unknowable things, and acts in a way we cannot even begin to comprehend, that that contradicts his goal of getting people to know him and means evil ensues from the inevitable clashes between factions that disagree on their understanding. As an omnipotent being, he could do what he wants in a way that we are able to understand; that he deliberately chooses not to would not be a benevolent decision. [/QUOTE] I think the knowing part is up to us. We must surrender our false perceptions to the truth. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2006, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/culture-war-religious-cannot-win-a-debate-so-they-start-a-war/383864/249 "2006-12-21T14:39:06Z")
[QUOTE=magellan01] One could say that the amount of “knowability” is precisely where he thinks it should be. Also, if God popped onto the airways and performed a few miracles for all to see, eliminating all doubt as to his existence, that kind of does away with “faith”. Now that might be interesting, seeing how people—who would all be believers—would act. For some reason he chose this scenario, which does make a little more of free will. [/quote] If he did exist, it would be only logical to say the amount of “knowability” is exactly where he thinks it should be. And there’s the problem; the lack of it doesn’t seem to dovetail with his other attributes. Regarding your miracles example, I think you’re confusing two issues; knowing that God exists, and knowing what he’s about if he exists. I know that God, if he exists, is supposed to be all about loving and goodness; but I don’t think he actually exists. He could improve what we know about him without actually making us certain he exists; the Bible could be clearer, for example. > [@](#): > > Agreed. The question is then to what degree and at what rate he will dial up the “knowability” (if at all). But why would he need to dial it up? Because we’re not ready for it? That seems a bit like poor planning. > [@](#): > > My guess is that the amount “knowability” is tailor-made for man and the free will he endowed us with. If nothing else, I think you’d agree that its allowed man to show himself at his best and his worst. Maybe that’s the point. God is supposed to be omniscient. He doesn’t need to be shown us at our best and worst; he should already know. > [@](#): > > Doesn’t that go too far? How about The Ten Commandments? The teachings of Jesus? How do we know where “too far” is? I’ll paraphase Rumsfeld horribly and point out that if there are things we know we don’t know, there should also be things we don’t know we don’t know; it’s only logical to say that it’s likely we’ve got some aspect of such an unknowable creature wrong? The Ten Commandments may seem clear, but there’s a lot of wiggle room there. Same for the teachings of Jesus. > [@](#): > > Maybe he’s experimenting with the effects of free will. Maybe in another time or another place he dialed up—or down—the degree to which he is known and is looking at the incidence of following him. In the end it is a personal decision. The entities with the experiences and DNA that make each of us who we are each have to choose for ourselves. But he doesn’t need to look, he knows already. Experimentation on helpless creatures when it isn’t needed and the results are already known is something even we tend to look down on. And yes, we do have to choose for ourselves. But because of the unknowability factor, it’s not a case of choice a or choice b; it’s choice a and choice b, or maybe c, or maybe d… It just doesn’t work with what are supposed to be God’s ideals to leave some ambiguity as to what he stands for and why he does things. > [@](#): > > =cosmosdanI think the knowing part is up to us. We must surrender our false perceptions to the truth. Pretty difficult when the being of truth won’t identify itself as the truth. Kinda makes it all guesswork. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2006, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/culture-war-religious-cannot-win-a-debate-so-they-start-a-war/383864/250 "2006-12-21T15:17:40Z")
[QUOTE=begbert2] It should also be noted that, as far as I know, there is no objective evidence of the _non_-existence of God. [/QUOTE] This isn’t evidence _for_ god though. > [@](#): > > And, generally speaking, God cannot be disproven because we can’t study everything, We can study everything real. > [@](#): > > and he’s presumed to be a sentient being who is aware of the studies to there’s you can’t double blind him or assume that his non-interference events that are studied will be indicitave of the level of his interference with events that _aren’t_ studied. We can double blind study humans, and they are supposedly intelligent. > [@](#): > > That is, there are always lots of prayers we _didn’t_ study and maybe he influenced those; no way to tell. Again, this isn’t evidence _for_ prayer. It’s just an excuse, thought up after the fact. > [@](#): > > So, why should the _default position_ of a person, especially children but including adults, be that it is _inconcievable_ that the universe in general operates on a similar model to the one they are familiar with from family and society? Sure, we look around and can’t actually _see_ a Big Parent, but we figured out the ‘existing while out of sight’ thing a long time ago, after seeing people walking out of the room and coming back intact enough times. Yeah, there’s no obvious set of rules written in bold print across the sky, but there certainly seem to be people receiving what could easily be rewards and consequences: being struck by lightning, getting aids, and the like. And when people do something silly like cry out to the sky for aid, well you guessed it: sometimes their wish is granted, sometimes it’s ignored, or maybe denied. (It’s kind of hard to tell those two apart when you can only see the effect.) For a child yes, I wouldn’t argue that. But an adult would know better than to extend the idea as far as god. They can realize that no person knows everything. Certainly that no person is all powerful. And definitely that no person loves everyone. Existing while out of sight is much different from ‘invisible’ or ‘intangible’. These are all attributes that are easily recognized at unreal. So taking the leap from ‘parents exists’ and ‘authority exists’ to ‘god exists’ is huge and unsubstatiated. It’s easy to see, after a bit of thought, that those consequences are not directed at people doing bad things, unless god really hates the tops of tall trees and skyscrapers, and can have his will thwarted by a grounding line. > [@](#): > > Plus, when science does weigh in, almost none of science even speaks on the subject of a parental or anthropomorphic god; and _none_ of it definitively disproves such a being. This is because science hasn’t found anything on the subject of god. It isn’t looking for anything for or against god, it’s just looking at reality. Science not finding anything isn’t evidence for god, but it might be considered evidence against. > [@](#): > > Oh, and you ask why we-the-society think of UFO-believers and finger-wigglers as a little crazy, and not religious people? Well, first off, we don’t even think of those two groups as crazy for the same reasons as each _other_. Why should the reasoning(s) be expected to apply to religion as well? Actually, we do. They believe in something without adaquate evidence for that something. > [@](#): > > Belief in God avoids the finger-wiggling problem because God is presumed to be intelligent, and to occasionally refrain from performing in every instance as a result of a conscous decision on his own part. So perfect success is never _guaranteed_, and when critics are watching, he could be choosing not to making the expected result occur _because_ the cameras are rolling. Assuming he exists, he _clearly_ is in no hurry to definitively settle the question about his existence. Why assume then that he could be ‘fooled’ by a scientific study? Why is god presumed to be intelligent? Is there some evidence somewhere that shows that god is intelligent in this way? Or is this an excuse made up after the fact? The problem with the argument is that you can’t say for sure that god is intelligent, because you don’t know. People are intelligent, and we can run studies on things they do, even with the critics watching. And why would god hide himself from things like this? One good example, and he suddenly has a whole bunch more followers. > [@](#): > > Regarding UFOs, I actually hadn’t noticed us thinking that people who merely _believe_ in aliens to be crazy; it’s only the ones who think that aliens have come _here_, _recently_, that we think are loons. Yes, that’s what I said. > [@](#): > > This is because we have radar. We assume that if aliens were zipping around in our atmosphere, they would have been noticed by now by the various governmental and scientific poeple who are skywatching and reported forthwith. Don’t you hear the excuses they use? The alien’s technology is much more advanced then ours, and precludes us finding them through terrestrial means. Sound familiar? > [@](#): > > Unless of course there is a _secret government coverup conspiracy hiding them_ :eek:, which is nuts for pretty much the same reason as the UFOs: somebody would have noticed and told us about it through “credible channels” by now. You’d think someone would have found real evidence for god and told us about it through credible channels by now. > [@](#): > > A handful of individual testimonials isn’t credible, in the face of continued denying silence from the authorities who should probably have noticed it happening. This argument sound familar for some reason too. > [@](#): > > It also helps that UFO-sighters are massively outnumbered, both globally and regionally. If 80% of the people claimed to have been abducted by UFOs, we wouldn’t be calling them all crazy; we’d be hiding out in bunkers. This is an appeal to popularity. They would still need present evidence. > [@](#): > > God avoids the UFO problem because he’s presumed to be undetectable except at moments of his own discretion, and to have some affection for people believing in him without him hammering the point in by leaving obvious evidence. All the places that he’s supposedly interacted with reality are theoretically examinable, and sometimes we bother to and prove it didn’t happen or find some other explanation, but there’s still lots of events both in the bible and in the subjective experience that science has nothing to say about, so it’s quite easy to suppose that the wrong things were ‘metaphorical’ (Jesus did use a lot of parables) and the other bits that haven’t been explicitly disproven actually happened. Again, this is just an excuse after the fact. You don’t know god is undetectable. And considering that every single time a god event is investigated it turns out to not be god after all, that some kind of pattern is emerging? The fact that certain events in the bible haven’t been proven wrong yet is not evidence for god. Evidence for god would be proving one of them right. You can’t start off with the assumption that god is real, and then expect him to proven wrong. > [@](#): > > And of course lots and _lots_ of people believe in God. So many so that the atheist is the fringe group. This does not make the atheist crazy, but it also supports the idea that the thiest is _not_ crazy; it’s not insane to believe arguments from popularity or authority after all. Such things have no place in a formal proof, but very few people frame their beliefs in terms of strict logic. It’s normal not to. It is insane to believe arguments from popularity or authority when there is no other evidence to believe those arguments. If all you have is ‘well, all these people think it’s true’, then that doesn’t make it true. You don’t have to prove god by formal logic, just present some evidence. That no evidence at all, after all this time and effort, has been brought forth, is a big red flag all by itself. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2006, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/culture-war-religious-cannot-win-a-debate-so-they-start-a-war/383864/251 "2006-12-21T16:10:28Z")
[QUOTE=cosmosdan] As I said, some will argue intelligent design and insist that creation itself is evidence. I realize we know a lot about the earth but there are still unanswered questions. [/QUOTE] But they would be quite wrong. Intelligent design doesn’t have any evidence, its just an idea, that some things are too complicated to have developed solely from random processes. They don’t give any proof of this, no actual studies, anything. Besides, it’s well known that ID is just creationism in new clothes, and creationism is just a religious agenda. Unanswered questions are not evidence for god. Thats the god of the gaps argument. > [@](#): > > Given the way society has developed I don’t think it’s illogical or irrational for people to believe. I think there’s a slow natural process taking place as scientific knowledge becomes more available and I see the nature of spiritual beliefs changing. The kind of scientific knowledge needed to dispel certain myths hasn’t been around all that long and it takes generations for it to displace long held traditions. Religious beliefs have a certain insulation. I think the fact that so many do believe gives it weight even though it’s not objective evidence. Think about it. You need to support this argument more. Science hasn’t dispelled many, if any, of the long held myths about god. And logical conclusion of the development you mention is the elimination of the belief in god. > [@](#): > > I’ve never been to Austrailia but I believe it’s there because of what I’ve been taught and the fact that it’s a widely accepted fact. You can’t realistically expect everyone to examine the evidence in detail and make a “logical” accessment. Of course I can expect people to examine the evidence and make a logical assessment. That’s how you decided Australia existed right? People presented evidence, and because it behaves for all intents that it does exist, and because you have no reason to think it doesn’t you assume it does. Making a logical deduction does not always involve axioms and proofs. > [@](#): > > Imagine a radio station broadcasting the same signal a very consistant message to everyone. The problem is everyone hasn’t figured out how to tune in their receiver. Compound that problem with those who feel sure they are understanding the message when in fact they’ve corrupted it with their own feelings and agendas. Compound it still more with those who want to manipulate those who are trying to tune in. It is confusing and I understand people choosing to believe there is no broadcast. Being one who has exoerienced the power and mystery of tuning in I also understand those who continue to believe. But you haven’t even shown that the radio station exists, much less broadcasts. If you send people out looking for something so nebulous like god, then people are going to be able to point to anything and see it, and still not have actually found anything. > [@](#): > > Yeah and… what? When you say in their heads are you implying that no one should ever speak their beliefs out loud unless they have objective evidence to prove them. Comon! I mean really. What are you suggesting as a solution? I agree that religious beliefs should not be off limits as far as open discussion and objective examination. I still maintain that we need to respect people’s right to choose their beliefs while making sure those beliefs do not threaten or oppress others. No one should speak their beliefs out loud unless they can stand to have them challenged. Once the beliefs are out of their heads, anyone can say anything they want about them, true or not. You can’t talk to people about what you believe and expect people to just nod and smile, especialy if you’re espousing something crazy or dangerous. ‘Its personal’ doesn’t apply anymore, once it’s in the open. Why do we have to respect people’s right to choose their belief? I have to respet someone’s boundaries, and once a belief is out of their mouth is passed their boundaries. If someone chooses to believe that ice cream is good for computers and they should spoon it right in, I’m certainly not going to respect their belief. I don’t see why religious beliefs should be given a miss with this. They should be held to the same standards all other beliefs are held to in society. > [@](#): > > My point is that since the question of God’s existance cannot be answered conclusively it’s okay for people to come down on the believe side. Whoa, this is all kinds of wrong. If you can’t give evidence for something, why is right to think that thing exists? This counter to rational thought. > [@](#): > > You read my post incorrectly. I said since the subjective experience is almost all of the spiritual journey then believers should not expect to prove their beliefs to others, nor should they insist that everyone believes exactly as they do. The spiritual journey is not almost all subjective experience. Most people are taught to follow religion from a very young age. They aren’t allowed to make decisions about it, nor are they capabable at that age. And why should they be let off the hook because they’re having experiences they think they are spiritual? This is making an exception for something that does not deserve it. > [@](#): > > Even people that belong to major religions and specific denominatins do not all believe the same thing. You need to do the research before you make blanket assertions like that. Isn’t that what you’re demanding of believers? What kind of variation is there with something like Catholicism? How many Catholics don’t believe in god? How many don’t think Jesus dies and rose from the dead? I don’t care about little variations, I’m talking about the main tenets. How can a person be Catholic without thinking god exists? > [@](#): > > You are misunderstanding the application of subjective evidence. No I’m not. If you think I am, you’ll have to explain how. > [@](#): > > I don’t agree. Spiritual beliefs have a long history and tradition and there are millions of believers from all classes and intellects and are changing. You’re saying without sufficient evidence non belief should be the default. Perhaps without hundreds of years of religious tradition and influence that might be realistic. This is just another appeal to popularity. There is hundreds of years of tradition for the flat earth theory, and thousands of years tradition for the Egyptian mythology. > [@](#): > > I’m not talking about the subjective evidence of an objective reality. When someone says God is, we don’t know what God represents to them. Supreme being, in itself is still a somewhat vague term. In many ways I think the concept of God represents those unsolved mysteries about us. Where did we come from? Do we have a purpose greater than just survival and reproduction? Does our consciousness or spirit survive the end of our physical body? Those are questions that science has no definitive answers for even though progress has been made. So? I’m not really concerned about little variations. My statement covers all of them. > [@](#): > > My own subjective experiences have led me to believe there is something more although my beliefs are very different now from the Christianity I once embraced. I think the important part of those subjective experiences are about what our priorities are and what we value. You just said that your experiences that you derive your belief about about ‘god’ from have to do with what you want, and are not about god itself. > [@](#): > > In that believers and non believers can find common ground. When it comes to making value judgements and choosing how our lives affects the lives of others ,everyone acts with a certain amount of faith. Support this. I think you are misusing the word faith. > [@](#): > > That’s the kind of subjective I am talking about. Even though religion does have some beliefs about objective reality, it is more in the subjective realm of “what we truly value and how our choices reflect that” that most of religion lies. There’s plenty of reason to criticize religion in that area as well, but in it all people share a common imperfection. I’m not concerned with the subjective realm. My statement applies to people who assert god is real. This is any kind of real. You can’t say ‘god is real, but not this kind of real, so you can’t expect to see him’ and think it won’t apply to you. > [@](#): > > Concerning your ideas about believers being delusional or a little bit crazy. I remember my own process of letting go of certain beliefs. It’s a bit more complicated than reading a science book and saying “Gee I guess my sacred beliefs aren’t true” It’s too deeply rooted in people’s emotions and even their sense of purpose and well being. I don’t think it’s reasonable or realistic to treat it in purely objective terms. That is their problem, not mine. It doesn’t allow them to get around the expectation of being rational. In my experience, the deeper a belief like that is held, the more likely the person is to be a little crazy. > [@](#): > > Were the people that believed in the Roman Gods delusional or just living within the consciousness of their era? I did address this before. You also have to remember that the Romans did not think about their gods the way our sociiety thinks about god. The Roman gods were basically people with special abilities. The Romans joked about their gods, made fun of them, cursed them, and made offerings to whoever they thought would help them. I can see this version of a god much easier than the Christian god because it doesn’t have as many unreal attributes. > [@](#): > > I’m all for challenging people’s beliefs , objective and subjective. I think it stimulates growth. I don’t think it serves any useful purpose to call believers delusional or a little crazy. I don’t think it’s accurate when you consider how belief is so ingrained in our society. I do. By exposing their belief as what it is, an unfounded opinion, it will bring them level with the rest of the society. The gubmint will be more hesistant to lavish funding on them. They won’t be able to get away with crimes like they have in the past. People won’t boycott business because that business doesn’t kowtow to their opinions. Religion will be just another group with a nutty belief. Everything good that religion does now, feeding the poor, providing a social group, etc, can be done without all the beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2006, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/culture-war-religious-cannot-win-a-debate-so-they-start-a-war/383864/252 "2006-12-21T17:29:05Z")
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold] But you flying isn’t something you are able to choose. God could choose not to do something; he doesn’t, but he is able to. The future is set in stone for an omniscient being (and the rest of us, of course), but that doesn’t mean they could not have chosen otherwise, only that they \*did \* not (or will not). Your cause and effect is the wrong way round - it’s not that God knows something will happen and then chooses what to do, he chooses what to do abstractly and thus the knowledge of what he _would_ do is his. [/quote] He is able to do it if there was no omniscience issue, of course. Consider this. You are chatting with god about this leaf, and he has told you, honestly, that he has seen the leaf not fall. You ask him to make the leaf fall. (You’re a good buddy with God.) Now, when he says he chooses not to, I claim he is making the same kind of statement I made about flying (though you are right, it is from logical not physical issues.) You see, if he listens to you and does make the leaf fall, he has just invalidated his omniscience, so it is not possible. Therefore, not only does he not choose to make the leaf fall, he cannot without invalidating the basis of his godhood. Thus, he is not omnipotent, and has also invalidated the basis of his godhood. As for choosing otherwise, see my comment about when he sees the future. How could he choose before he sees what he has chosen? Besides that, the point is that he can’t change his mind. Are you saying that he was omnipotent at t=0, but is not anymore? Just to repeat a point made before, you are correct in claiming that god cannot do logically impossible things - but by this practically every action is logically impossible if it is counter to what was foreseen, so god is stuck. > [@](#): > > Why would they be equal choices? They’d only be equal to a totally neutral God, and if we’re talking about the Christian one he certainly isn’t supposed to be. I’m not including omnibenevolence here, which has its own problem. Even a God who is not neutral can clearly do evil, since to not be able to do evil means one is not omnipotent. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2006, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/culture-war-religious-cannot-win-a-debate-so-they-start-a-war/383864/253 "2006-12-21T17:46:35Z")
[QUOTE=magellan01] For instance, the opportunity to have only one event take place simultaneously. Or the possibility of god hitting rewind. Or of god doing one of a billion other things that we cannot even fathom. [/quote] Can God make alternate universes, one where he is omnipotent and one where he is omniscient? Interesting. Not too well Biblically supported, though. But I don’t think natural laws are a problem here. > [@](#): > > That’s what I’ve been saying all along! You’re just constructing contradictions and attempting to dress them up so they look like some deep philosophical enquiry. “Can God build a round cube? Can God build a triangle that doesn’t have 180 degrees? Can God add one and one and get seven? Can God both foresee an even happening and have it not happen?” **Revanant** explored this with you along the same lines that I did earlier. But you want God to state the future and therefore lock it in. Well, what if God doesn’t state the future? Maybe it’s not a thing God does. The way to prove a negative is to assert it and show that it leads to a logical contradiction. It’s done all the time in math and philosophy, so I’m not doing anything odd. I guess you still don’t get that the problem is when God is both omniscient and omnipotent - all your examples are of god not being able to do logically impossible things without omniscience being involved, and I agree that his not being able to does not detract from his omnipotence. That’s not the issue. Also, nowhere does God have to state anything. When God told Jonah that he was going to destroy Nineveh, and changed his mind, that’s not a problem, since we can assume that God knew all along that he wasn’t going to destroy it, but lied to Jonah for his own purposes. My example only involves God seeing what he is going to do. Like I said, if God doesn’t see the future, there goes Christianity, which is based in part on prophecy. Stating it is irrelevant. > [@](#): > > And if God is this ideally perfect being, unerring in every way, why would he ever need to change his mind about future events? So he can’t change his mind? There goes omnipotence. I don’t see how changing his mind about a leaf falling has anything to do with perfection, anyhow. > [@](#): > > The inconsistencies I was referring to had to do with our knowledge, not Him or His doings. Okay. Apparent inconsistencies in the universe get resolved as we learn more, like the inconsistency in the age of the Earth as measured by the rocks and the age of the sun, which was a big problem in the 19th century. Nothing to do with God. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2006, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/culture-war-religious-cannot-win-a-debate-so-they-start-a-war/383864/254 "2006-12-21T17:53:59Z")
[QUOTE=cosmosdan] I think that’s the quality I was thinking of. Timeless. It’s pretty hard to grasp but IMHO things happen or don’t happen as a matter of spiritual condition rather than on any time related basis. God is consistently true to his nature which is love and truth. We have the ability to be in that nature fully but choose not to consciously or unconsciously. God may know every sparrow every blade of grass every hair on my head..{I wish he’d put some back} but it’s spiritual condition that translates into changes what we perceive as changes in physical reality and linear time. [/QUOTE] One problem with a timeless universe (and I’ve read some proposals on this from real physicists) is that there is no free will. Basically, everything that will happen has already happened. I see it as a big roadmap spread out over the ground, and we puny humans little ants mapping the roads. We think the roads we’ve walked on are in the past, and might think that the roads we haven’t walked on are still not set, but God, who sees the whole map, knows that they are all there. (Forget about the choices of taking forks for the moment.) I don’t see any way of deciding whether this model is true or not. My issue with the bi-omni god has nothing to do with his love or lack thereof - a non bi-omni god can be loving also. I have some issues about how he shows his love, but that’s a problem for another day. I think an evil god or a loving god has the same problem if he is supposed to be bi-omni. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2006, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/culture-war-religious-cannot-win-a-debate-so-they-start-a-war/383864/255 "2006-12-21T17:59:48Z")
[QUOTE=begbert2] I like the calm demeanor of this post, and will endeavor to emulate it. The first thing I’d like to say is, I am not now and never was arguing that God exists. (Maybe other posters were; I wasn’t.) I am arguing against the idea that you have to be insane to believe in God. I think that a perfectly rational person can believe in God, _especially_ if they were indocorinated into the belief, but even if they weren’t. [/QUOTE] Perhaps we can say that god belief is irrational, but that god believers are not necessarily irrational. The rational among us are often irrational about certain things, such as loved ones and hobbies. The atheist should not accuse the theist of being crazy because he has what they see as an irrational god belief, and the theist should not accuse the atheist of calling him crazy when the atheist calls a specific belief irrational. Then we can all get along. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2006, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/culture-war-religious-cannot-win-a-debate-so-they-start-a-war/383864/256 "2006-12-21T18:26:26Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] Perhaps we can say that god belief is irrational, but that god believers are not necessarily irrational. The rational among us are often irrational about certain things, such as loved ones and hobbies. [/QUOTE] But when the rational are being irrational, they are called irrational. If you are doing something irrational, you are being irrational. If belief in god is irrational, then believing in god makes a person irrational. > [@](#): > > The atheist should not accuse the theist of being crazy because he has what they see as an irrational god belief, and the theist should not accuse the atheist of calling him crazy when the atheist calls a specific belief irrational. > Then we can all get along. Tell you what, you tell all the religious people about this, and Ill tell all the athiests, and let’s see who agrees first. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2006, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/culture-war-religious-cannot-win-a-debate-so-they-start-a-war/383864/257 "2006-12-21T18:49:25Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] He is able to do it if there was no omniscience issue, of course. Consider this. You are chatting with god about this leaf, and he has told you, honestly, that he has seen the leaf not fall. You ask him to make the leaf fall. (You’re a good buddy with God.) Now, when he says he chooses not to, I claim he is making the same kind of statement I made about flying (though you are right, it is from logical not physical issues.) You see, if he listens to you and does make the leaf fall, he has just invalidated his omniscience, so it is not possible. Therefore, not only does he not choose to make the leaf fall, he cannot without invalidating the basis of his godhood. Thus, he is not omnipotent, and has also invalidated the basis of his godhood. [/quote] Here’s the thing though; through his omniscience, he already would know that I would talk to him. And he’d know whether or not my attempt to persuade him was successful. It’s not a case of him seeing the leaf fall, and then circumstances change so that I ask him not to; his “vision” of the future would include the talk and his change of mind. Think of it as a book with “God lets the leaf fall; Revenant does nothing”. If you want to change the circumstances, so that I do in fact intervene and say something, that book never existed in the first place. Instead we have one with “Revenant tries to persuade him to change his mind”. It doesn’t conflict with his original prediction because the original prediction would be different. > [@](#): > > As for choosing otherwise, see my comment about when he sees the future. How could he choose before he sees what he has chosen? Besides that, the point is that he can’t change his mind. Are you saying that he was omnipotent at t=0, but is not anymore? No, i’m saying that he _can_ change his mind. He just won’t. > [@](#): > > Just to repeat a point made before, you are correct in claiming that god cannot do logically impossible things - but by this practically every action is logically impossible if it is counter to what was foreseen, so god is stuck. There is no “counter to what was foreseen”. A perfectly accurate predicter would see all events, including other people’s attempt to change his/her mind and the results of that. You can’t say “aha, but what if this happens?” because if it does happen it has already been taken into account. > [@](#): > > I’m not including omnibenevolence here, which has its own problem. Even a God who is not neutral can clearly do evil, since to not be able to do evil means one is not omnipotent. You’re quite correct, but an omnibenevolent being can still choose to do evil; it simply decides to do good. I like to think of myself as a generally good person, but I could still choose to go out on a murdering spree. I just don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2006, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/culture-war-religious-cannot-win-a-debate-so-they-start-a-war/383864/258 "2006-12-21T20:30:28Z")
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold] Here’s the thing though; through his omniscience, he already would know that I would talk to him. And he’d know whether or not my attempt to persuade him was successful. It’s not a case of him seeing the leaf fall, and then circumstances change so that I ask him not to; his “vision” of the future would include the talk and his change of mind. Think of it as a book with “God lets the leaf fall; Revenant does nothing”. If you want to change the circumstances, so that I do in fact intervene and say something, that book never existed in the first place. Instead we have one with “Revenant tries to persuade him to change his mind”. It doesn’t conflict with his original prediction because the original prediction would be different. [/quote] But then I can replay the scenario in the opposite direction. Same problem. The issue is that before God sees what will happen he has several degrees of freedom - two in this case. After he sees what is going to happen it collapses to one - it doesn’t matter what it is. Since he is omniscient eternally in the negative time direction, He never has more than one degree of freedom - he knows, before it happens, exactly what he is going to do. This basically, I’ve just seen, boils down to the standard time travel paradox without the escape routes of alternate timelines of the inability of someone to change the future. > [@](#): > > No, i’m saying that he _can_ change his mind. He just won’t. There is no “counter to what was foreseen”. A perfectly accurate predicter would see all events, including other people’s attempt to change his/her mind and the results of that. You can’t say “aha, but what if this happens?” because if it does happen it has already been taken into account. But how can he change his mind, without changing what he saw in the past? > [@](#): > > You’re quite correct, but an omnibenevolent being can still choose to do evil; it simply decides to do good. I like to think of myself as a generally good person, but I could still choose to go out on a murdering spree. I just don’t. Arguments against omnibenevolence usually center around what god has actually done, not what he could do. It’s more evidence based - that someone arguing for omnibenevolence must say every child who died in the tsunami had to for the greater benefit of the world - but isn’t a logical problem. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2006, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/culture-war-religious-cannot-win-a-debate-so-they-start-a-war/383864/259 "2006-12-21T21:09:45Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] But then I can replay the scenario in the opposite direction. Same problem. [/quote] And the omniscient being would have seen it that way in the first place. No problem. > [@](#): > > The issue is that before God sees what will happen he has several degrees of freedom - two in this case. After he sees what is going to happen it collapses to one - it doesn’t matter what it is. Since he is omniscient eternally in the negative time direction, He never has more than one degree of freedom - he knows, before it happens, exactly what he is going to do. > This basically, I’ve just seen, boils down to the standard time travel paradox without the escape routes of alternate timelines of the inability of someone to change the future. Just because he knows what will happen doesn’t negate that he can choose. It just means he won’t. If God were to make a prediction on a decision, and then change his mind on it, his initial prediction would be that he would change his mind. He can still change it, and his prediction would reflect any future choice he might make. His constraint boils down to that when he does something, he does it; not really logical inconsistency or even a constraint there at all. > [@](#): > > But how can he change his mind, without changing what he saw in the past? He can’t. That’s my point. If he changed his mind, it would change what he forsaw retroactively (ok, retroactively is not the perfect word. I’m not suggesting the future affects the past.) > [@](#): > > Arguments against omnibenevolence usually center around what god has actually done, not what he could do. It’s more evidence based - that someone arguing for omnibenevolence must say every child who died in the tsunami had to for the greater benefit of the world - but isn’t a logical problem. Er, yes, I know. I’m not arguing about God being benevolent. I don’t know why why we started talking about, actually. If it was something I said, I didn’t mean to; my only problem is with the omniscient/omnipotent example you brought up. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2006, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/culture-war-religious-cannot-win-a-debate-so-they-start-a-war/383864/260 "2006-12-22T04:44:31Z")
[QUOTE=hotflungwok] Unanswered questions are not evidence for god. Thats the god of the gaps argument. [/QUOTE] I’m leaving a few things out for the sake of brevity. My point is that the unaswered questions leve the creator option open. > [@](#): > > You need to support this argument more. Science hasn’t dispelled many, if any, of the long held myths about god. And logical conclusion of the development you mention is the elimination of the belief in god. What science does is shed light on certain traditional beliefs and the real objective evidence makes people look at their beliefs a little closer. If science clearly shows that the flood never happened , or the Jews did not wander in the desert for ages , or that the Bible wasn’t written by God, or the earth isn’t 6000 years old, that’s progress. I don’t accept that the logical conclusion is the elimination of belief in God. It can be a clearer understanding of God. > [@](#): > > Of course I can expect people to examine the evidence and make a logical assessment. That’s how you decided Australia existed right? People presented evidence, and because it behaves for all intents that it does exist, and \*\*because you have no reason to think it doesn’t you assume it does. \*\* Making a logical deduction does not always involve axioms and proofs. But you sure talk about proof a lot. Yeah people I trust told me that Australia and other countries I’ve never visited exist so I believe them. That’s my point about the how belief in God is ingrained in us. The same point **begbert2** has been making. Growing up in this culture and being told about God and Jesus by many people you trust and having that concept supported by millions of others of believers it doesn’t seem too irrational to accept that belief. Look at your own statement that I bolded. Many of the people I’m talking about believe in God because they have no reason not to. They were taught God is from their youth and it’s been supported enough by their environment that they have no reason to think God does not exist. > [@](#): > > But you haven’t even shown that the radio station exists, much less broadcasts. If you send people out looking for something so nebulous like god, then people are going to be able to point to anything and see it, and still not have actually found anything. I’m saying the reception of the broadcast is seen as evidence that the message is coming from somewhere. When someone has a subjective experience that is exceptional. A moment of clarity, understanding, love, compassion, peace of mind. they naturally wonder what might be the source of that experience. Whether you like it or approve, or not, the conclusion for many is God. Furthermore, science has only begun to offer alternatives concerning those experiences. > [@](#): > > No one should speak their beliefs out loud unless they can stand to have them challenged. Once the beliefs are out of their heads, anyone can say anything they want about them, true or not. You can’t talk to people about what you believe and expect people to just nod and smile, especialy if you’re espousing something crazy or dangerous. ‘Its personal’ doesn’t apply anymore, once it’s in the open. I’ll go along with that. If the JW or Mormon’s with a mission come to my door they’d better be ready. If someone uses a biblical text to defend oppressing the rights of others they’ll get an earful. As I said , I have no problem with beliefs being challenged. OTOH if I made a comment about my beliefs and someone jumped on me and insisted I offer proof I wouldn’t feel any need to meet their demand upon request. > [@](#): > > Why do we have to respect people’s right to choose their belief? We don’t _have_ to. We do it if we want people to respect our right to do the same. I’m not talking just about religious beliefs. I’m talking about our individual belief system. WHat we value and what we consider right and wrong. > [@](#): > > I have to respet someone’s boundaries, and once a belief is out of their mouth is passed their boundaries. If someone chooses to believe that ice cream is good for computers and they should spoon it right in, I’m certainly not going to respect their belief. I don’t see why religious beliefs should be given a miss with this. They should be held to the same standards all other beliefs are held to in society. Except that you, like many atheists who enjoy heaping disdain on religious beliefs don’t hold them to the same standards. If someone wants to spoon icecream into their own computer and it doesn’t effect you at all then why ridicule them needlessly? There is a crucial difference between respecting the belief itself and respecting the persons right to hold a belief. I don’t believe God wrote the bible or that it is inerrant. I’ve seen a wealth of evidence to prove that is an erroneus belief and happen to think this belief only stifles individual growth. If someone refers to the Bible as the word of God I am likely to challenge them. I’m glad for books on the subject as more evidence becomes available to more people. However, because I understand that people need to work through their beliefs and give them up when they are ready, I still respect their right to choose that belief. As long as it doesn’t effect me and mine I will allow them the space to work through their beliefs in peace. > [@](#): > > Whoa, this is all kinds of wrong. If you can’t give evidence for something, why is right to think that thing exists? This counter to rational thought. Whats really wrong here is that you are now setting yourself up as the thought police. > [@](#): > > The spiritual journey is not almost all subjective experience. Most people are taught to follow religion from a very young age. They aren’t allowed to make decisions about it, nor are they capabable at that age. And why should they be let off the hook because they’re having experiences they think they are spiritual? This is making an exception for something that does not deserve it. Given your statements thus far I doubt you have any basis to make an informed judgement about what the spiritual journey is. If this is more than a superficial opinion then please expound on your basis and experience for this statement. > [@](#): > > No I’m not. If you think I am, you’ll have to explain how. You are speaking of subjective evidence in regard to objective beliefs. I’m speaking of subjective evidence for subjective beliefs. Big difference. > [@](#): > > This is just another appeal to popularity. There is hundreds of years of tradition for the flat earth theory, and thousands of years tradition for the Egyptian mythology. Right, and there was a natural process for those beliefs to shift from the norm to being discarded in the general mindset. We are in that process but the norm at the moment is belief in God. That doesn’t make it correct, but it does speak to your acccusation of “a little crazy” > [@](#): > > You just said that your experiences that you derive your belief about about ‘god’ from have to do with what you want, and are not about god itself. No I didn’t. > [@](#): > > Support this. I think you are misusing the word faith. This is part of what gets me. You want to remove the protected status of religious belief and judge it by the same standards as other beliefs. When I talk of faith in the non believer I get this type of objection. All people operate on some faith. Thats the way the human pysche and emotions work. You have faith that certain actions will yeild positive results. You have beliefs about what is right and what is wrong behavior even though thiose beliefs can change with effort and experiences. You may have faith that your signifiicant other loves you, or you may believe love is an illusion. All these beliefs have a direct effect on your choices and behavior and are a matter of faith. > [@](#): > > I’m not concerned with the subjective realm. Then you shouldn’t participate in this type of discussion. > [@](#): > > My statement applies to people who assert god is real. This is any kind of real. You can’t say ‘god is real, but not this kind of real, so you can’t expect to see him’ and think it won’t apply to you. You can’t huh? Does God have a physical form or is he only spirit? What kind of real is that? Does God intervene directly into the affairs of man or is he more of the observer that deists describe? > [@](#): > > That is their problem, not mine. It doesn’t allow them to get around the expectation of being rational. In my experience, the deeper a belief like that is held, the more likely the person is to be a little crazy. No, It does allow folks like myself to disagree with you. I am disturbed by people who feel the need to be _positive_ their beliefs are correct whether they are believers or non believers. I’ll have to finish this later. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/culture-war-religious-cannot-win-a-debate-so-they-start-a-war/383864.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/culture-war-religious-cannot-win-a-debate-so-they-start-a-war/383864.md?page=14)