Nonsense. The point is that you have to invent this place. By definition you have no information about it; if it exists it’s outside our ability to observe. Calling it a closet is as valid as calling it a palace, because in either case we’re both pulling it out of our butts.
With regard to absence of evidence/evidence of absence, all gods that keep clear of our observable universe are equally ‘safe’ from examination, and to that degree equally preserved from disproof of existence. Also, nobody can possibly know anything about them. (Strange how people keep claiming to.)
The POE is a whole separate discussion, that is perfectly valid but probably doesn’t belong in this thread…or maybe it does, in that it effects the places where we would expect to find evidence for the absent thing in question. For an omnipresent omnimax omnibenevolent god, we can prove that we will see evidence for it everywhere - at least to the degree that we will find no things that defy its will. Which opens the hairy discussion about what the heck people mean by “omnibenevolence”, which probably belongs in another thread.
So, for any omnimax god that a person could theorize, it is perfectly valid to look at the observable universe for evidence of it. You don’t even have to look everywhere. You can look in one place, and if you find something that an omnimax god wouldn’t allow, you’re done - you have an affirmative disproof of the diety.
This of course doesn’t apply to non-omnimax gods like Odin, Zeus, the FSM, or that stealthy elephant in your living room. Omnimax gods are a special case in this regard.
Here’s another: Maybe it’s not all eyewitness testimony. There are whole sections of my local library labeled “fiction”, and in there’s a book called “just-so stories”. Also, myths. Also, legends. Also, tall tales. Also, fish stories. Also, lies. And even, ‘parables’. Heck, I’ve even heard it alledged that parables were not unknown back in biblical times! Some guy Joshua was supposedly fond of them, I vaguely recall.
How is this clear? You never heard of a fish story? You never heard of the telephone game? Stories that are only stored in human memory and only transmitted orally have a well known and documented tendency to warp and grow as time passes. They may have been telling stories for forty years, but the original stories might have had no resemblance to the ones that eventually got written down.
If you’ve never seen a secular/rational explanation for the contents of the bible that is longer than a single-statement dismissal, then you’ve been reading this message board with your eyes closed, and possibly with your fingers stuck in your ears for good measure.
Atheists said that? Believe in what? God?
People have a tendency to believe what they’re told by people they trust, and people desire that their own beliefs be validated as correct, including their belief that their parents and social authority figures are honest and reliable sources of information. That translates into a desire to believe in god if your parents have told you god is real - and doubly so if they have told you that you are supposed to believe in god, but if you aren’t given these cues you have no reason to believe in god. Whole societies have existed with comepletely different beliefs (nature spirits!), and gotten by just fine.
Maybe the atheists were arguing that because the theists were arguing that? If the theists say that god makes lightning strike bad people, then the atheists will argue against it by pointing out that we should (like the theists said) be seeing that if god exists - but we’re seeing it strike tall people instead. Perhaps that was what you heard. And the difference being that now the theists don’t make the claim much, because they’re seeing more people who don’t care much about God around nowadays, which makes the claim silly. (Atheists/hindus/europeans/etc.)
Thing is, though, the religious side has evidence like old books full of (proven) myths, fantastic dreams, and Jesus cheetos. You spoke of multiple eyewitness accounts? They don’t have multiple eyewitness accounts, not nowadays. You don’t have dozens of people reporting that Jesus is preaching on the street corner, confirmed by each other and the six o’clock news. You don’t have anything but cheezy anecdotes, and cheezy cheetos.
When the “evidence” is this bad, we throw the case out.
And we keep them until they stop explaining things nicely, at which point we struggle a bit with institutional momentum, and then go looking for and accept the new better answer.
Or at least this is what science does, being the search for truth and correctness. Other information methodologies less interested in the truth and correctness do not throw out ideas and beliefs that have been shown to suck eggs.
Like I said, you can always come up with explanations. I’m sure someone could create “natural” reasons for the formation of superballs. Then there would be no “evidence” that they were created either.
So, have you declared that you know every single thing every human being has ever seen, heard, done, and had reason to believe in all of history? I’m going to assume you aren’t claiming to be god, so, you must be trying to divert the discussion back to the scientific evidence debate… Like I said would happen…
No one is claiming that following the precepts of the Flying Spaghetti Monster changed their life. (I don’t know of anyone claiming that the FSM has any precepts to follow.) No one is claiming that they are happier, that their life is more managable, that they are better able to deal with tragedy/disappointment, that they are a better person, (the definition of better would be a whole other topic,) that their lives and the lives of people around them are better because of how they live and because they follow the FSM. (and please don’t try to bring up the example of people who obviously aren’t following the precepts they claim to believe to show the damage those precepts cause. If they aren’t following the precepts, they aren’t a good example of what happens when you follow those precepts.)
This is also the answer to begbert2…
The eyewitness accounts continue, even if they aren’t “eyewitness” in the sense of actually seeing Jesus. There is no scientific evidence. All the evidence is personal and relational. People claiming that god touches their lives and that following the precepts makes lives better. And the best way to know what it would do to your life is to try it seriously. And it’s the only way to know if you will feel the connection they claim to feel. Because you can’t know why people follow something, or if they truly believe, or if they are following it for the wrong reasons, or even if they are actually following it. It’s hard to know why people get different results when they otherwise seem to be doing the same things, or the same results when they otherwise seem to be doing different things. (you find the same thing in scientific disciplines like medicine, too.) And you can’t really know if they are doing the same thing.
Yes, you know how it must be done… You know that it could have been done without suffering and therefore must be done without suffering. I guess I was wrong about you claiming to be god… What about other factors? Just one I can think of in a millisecond: The time factor. How long would it take to teach a person how to live a better life if you didn’t actually allow them to try it out? Another factor: what is easier? How difficult would it be to learn compassion if you never saw someone else in pain? How long would it take to learn to drive a car if you never saw one?
And if it had been done that way, people would complain that they’re frustrated with all this book learning and actually want to get their hands on the wheel, (but we can’t allow that until we’re sure they’re not going to make mistakes. So, would you like to estimate how long before we can be sure of that?) How much easier and quicker would it be if you were able to get behind the wheel and learn by doing. You make mistakes and you learn. Most human beings know this. We let people drive before they have a license; we let children interact before they know that hitting others hurts them; we let them learn to interact by interacting. I have never seen anyone claim people should learn how to treat other people without actually dealing with other people. Except atheists making ridiculous claims about what a god must do. (Well, you’re not quite claiming that, you’re just saying they shouldn’t be allowed to make mistakes. But it’s practically the same. If I’m forced to treat someone kindly when I want to punch them I’m not going to learn anything but frustration. I’m not going to learn the consequences of punching someone because it never happens. And I probably wouldn’t have got to the point of wanting to punch them if I had been allowed to make relational mistakes before that and learned how to deal with people better, but you would have prevented me from doing that… So, even though you’ve made some statements that indicate you think you have the knowledge of a god, I’m certainly glad you aren’t one.)
Either you’re claiming to be god again, knowing what evidence every atheist has ever seen. Or you’re still trying to redirect the debate back to scientific evidence.
And you keep showing that that’s what you’re doing. which certainly looks to me like:
If you had an “experiment” that you could perform over and over, (solely in this reality,) that would force a powerful being, (not confined to this reality,) to show himself, it wouldn’t be science; it would be magic. And he would have to keep proving himself over and over. Would you want anyone who wanted to calling you up to come over and show yourself to their friends to prove your existance over and over? Would you answer every time if we did that? There is no scientific evidence. You can’t command the appearance of sentient beings, even in this reality. There is no scientific evidence, move on…
If you want to talk about FSM models, we really need to discuss the current state of physics. (and don’t get me wrong; I’m a big fan of physics.)
There are about 10 to the 500 ways to configure the extra dimensions in string theory. One might describe our universe, (if we’re lucky more than one,) or maybe none can even be made to describe our universe. Even if we find one, if we can’t independently verify the dimensions, it could just be a useful trick. (but one I’d be willing to live with.)
The multiverse theory doesn’t explain why our universe should have the values it does for fundemental constants. It avoids the question by proposing something that can never be seen, verified, or refuted. It doesn’t give any rules that can be used to see what values will exist in a given reality. It doensn’t give any rules for how to set the parameters of a reality. It just explains away the fact that we have a very fortuitous set of parameters. It’s in full on FSM mode.
Some Physicists argue:
I however, have mentioned before that we’re probably going to have to in order to explain everything in this universe.
There’s also a very interesting article on the arrow of time that describes evidence that future events can influence the present. Time may not flow only one direction as we feel it does, (and an interesting set of pictures of people and vehicles on a street moving from various directions, but they all appear to be moving the same way because of how the pictures were taken.) That’s all off topic, though. (I just find it fascinating, and I wanted to talk about that for a change.)
Right, envisioning that our universe was created in a closet and not some fully formed reality makes just as much sense, and wasn’t intended to misrepresent or belittle. Go to a physicist and try to tell them that our universe is inside a closet, and that’s equivalent to the multiverse theory, (and that theory is full on FSM material.) It is not just as likely that some being stuck in a closet decides to create a universe as to say that being exists in his own fully formed reality with its own rules, even if I don’t know what they are.
But misrepresenting or misunderstanding is common here. Take the next statement…
That’s assuming he doesn’t interact at all, not just that he doesn’t respond to your demands that he appear.
Yes, belief in god. It’s called the Argument from Nonbelief. It’s common. Books have been written on it. The only thing I may have been wrong about is that atheists don’t claim it much anymore. Arguments from nonbelief. But, they do now write books on the “God gene.”
I said “in this thread.” (it was further up in the post.) But, I just meant dismissed with a statement in this thread. Leaving no argument to respond to. A statement like “most bible history has been refuted” with no supporting link/documentation isn’t worth responding to. I would have to list all of bible history and show that more than 50% of it is accurate. Why should I bother? If I were to say, (and I’m picking my own background so no one thinks I’m picking a racial bias,) “the Swedes are all liars and jerks.” You could go and interview them one by one until you find more than 50% that aren’t. Or you could ask me to defend my own statement. You wouldn’t waste time trying to refute a statement like that would you? It would just be keeping you from any actual discussion.
Yes, I don’t have a problem with the technique. I have a problem with their assumptions about motive and strategy. I have never once been forced to agree that a good god would have to have both the motives they ascribe and use the strategy they propose. And usually, one of them is quite childish. In that I have heard children use that argument to claim their parents are evil for not doing things their way, when an adult just laughs at that claim. So, we’re still talking about misrepresenting or misunderstanding the other side.
Don’t know what POE is. (oh, Problem of Evil?) But, I’m not worried about hijacking the thread anymore. It was practically dead after 2 weeks with no posts. Although if you want to go back to the original topic, I would really find that more interesting. Now, if someone wants to stop trying to redirect this discussion to misrepresentations like the lack of scientific evidence, or the FSM, I might find it interesting again.
I feel quite confident that no one has ever seen any actual evidence of a logically incoherent, obviously nonsensical, physics ignoring piece of primitive mythology. Just as I’m sure no one has ever seen any real evidence of fairies.
in other words, people aren’t supposed to criticize your pet beliefs until they have brainwashed themselves into believing them. And naturally at that point, they won’t want to criticize it. How convenient. A fairly standard tactic with people trying to defend nonsensical beliefs; “oh, if you are a skeptic the spirits won’t show up” and so on.
And your definition of “evidence” is ridiculous. It’s indistinguishable from “I made it all up on the spot”.
There are no other factors, not for an omnipotent. I know that any goal an omnipotent wants can be achieved without suffering, because the ability to do anything is what “omnipotent” means.
No, I’m pointing pout that there’s never been any evidence at all. And no, “I say so” isn’t evidence. Defining “evidence” to mean “any wild claim that anyone, anywhere makes” destroys the meaning of the word.
On the contrary; a repeatable experiment like that would be very scientific. And it would prove that there are no “separate realities”, as well.
No, but then I don’t go around demanding that people worship me and obey my orders. Nor do i violate the laws of physics.
There’s no evidence at all. And no, baseless claims are not evidence, especially when they wildly contradict each other.
Garbage. First, we already know that universes can exist; we live in one. See any FSMs wandering around recently? Second, it explains the fundamental values of constants quite neatly, by removing any need for them to be fine tuned to let us exist; this universe just happens to be one with constants that can support life. Third, all of the theories you are trying to put in a false equivalence with religion conform to the known physical laws of the universe; unlike religions. Nor for that matter do we know whether or not these theories involve things that “cant’ be seen, verified, or refuted” ( any number HAVE been refuted, in fact ), and scientists are looking quite hard for ways to do so; again, the opposite of religion. Your comparison doesn’t work.
You are badly distorting the argument. It is not argument from disbelief, which implies that people not believing is an argument against god, but argument from reasonable disbelief, which appears to be the statement that God set up the universe so that a rational person has good reason to disbelieve. A universe with clear evidence that the world was created, or that miracles occurred wouldn’t be like that.
Think of how many more souls Jesus would save if he did his tricks at a time they could be recorded. But no, to quote the Last Poets, “The Resurrection will not be Televised.”
The historical inaccuracy of the Bible has been so well established as to need no more support within a thread than the statement that the Sun rises in the East. I don’t see the difference between 49% accurate or 51% myself, not for a book supposedly inspired. Plus, the Bible is inaccurate in a way exactly as you’d expect for something written at a given time - historical events and the names of Kings the author would know directly are correct, that in history are increasingly incorrect - like the Exodus or the Davidic empire.
Though I tried to avoid discussions of religion when I started this thread, discussions of scientific evidence is definitely on topic. If your god interacts with the universe, it must leave traces of that interaction, and if there is absence of evidence of this expected interaction, then this is evidence of the absence of the deity. If your god does not interact with the universe then no evidence is expected, and the absence of this evidence says nothing about the existence of this god.
Personal experiences are covered by this also. In the long run all evidence is based on our perceptions. If five people describe a tree, they are relating their internal perceptions of that tree. If they all came up with wildly different descriptions, (and our not blindfolded!) it would be quite curious. But people’s perception of god varies with culture. and the hypothesis that their perception of God is more due to their upbringing rather than the actual existence of a god is very reasonable. Plus we know of mechanisms in our brain that cause such visions, and, as expected, we see things beside gods also.
You can come up with complex explanations for all this stuff, but god is inherently a simple and elegant explanation for lots of things - one that doesn’t hold up. Remember, if you tell us that all contradictions involving god can be explained by the fact that he is too complex to understand, you are also saying that we can do anything we damn well please, since no person can predict what god really wants.
I agree, the garbage starts right when you said it would. You really are a parody of a real argument. Anything I post in response to you is just so others don’t accidentally buy into it. Don’t think I’m actually going to spend anymore time debating you.
I hope everyone realizes that extrapolating from one example is total horse manure. We had wonderful models to “explain” solar system formation when we had only one model of a solar system. Funny how it had no relation to the solar systems we eventually found.
Personally, I realized that long ago. It doesn’t explain the values. It doesn’t say why other universes would exist, why ours does, or why other universes should have different values for those constants. It only lets you stop thinking about the questions that you still don’t have answers to.
I know we could build every building in the modern world with bricks. Therefore, we must. There are no other factors. We could go as high as we do with other materials as long as we also go wide enough… Except it might not be the best solution for the purpose we’re trying to achieve. Der Trihs’ argument relies on him knowing the goals of a god and every factor such a being would take into consideration. Or… like a teenager rebelling against a parent, he assumes that the one factor important to him is the only one possible. His ideas don’t challenge me intellectually. His arguments don’t start from any basis that I have to accept, and therefore, they don’t threaten my beliefs at all.
I linked to that argument because it had links below it to several versions of the argument I referenced. Unless you want to claim that that argument never existed? That you want to believe that atheists didn’t just move the goal line when it became clear that the ball was already on the other side of it all along?
I believe you are making a misconception, although a common one, even among believers. You are assuming that people who don’t hear or understand the message now are lost forever. That there isn’t some plan for redeeming them as well. Why wouldn’t people be judged on what they understand? (The bible says that they will be resurrected and then judged. And it doesn’t say they are judged out of a book of their past actions; it doesn’t say the books contain their actions at all. Why wouldn’t they be given the information to be tested on, and given a chance to act on that information and judged based on that? Why couldn’t that be the information in the books? So, either they are judged on what they understand, or are given the understanding that they are going to be judged on. And Either way, there’s no need for an obvious sign, especially if the whole point is so that we see what human beings come to based on their own understanding, and contrast that with a thousand years of his rule. Because it’s only then that it says the world is judged.)
Also a misrepresentation… or just plain wrong. If the kings of the earth and their armies are gathered to make war with Christ on his return, (Rev 19:19) and if His servants rise to meet him in the air, (1 Thess 4: 16-17) I don’t see how everyone won’t know it’s happening.
That indicates that it’s accurate in a way exactly as you would expect as well. I could just change it to read…
Plus, the Bible is accurate in a way exactly as you’d expect for something written at a given time - historical events and the names of Kings the author would know directly are correct, that in history are increasingly incorrect.
Speaking of parodies, the argument Der specfically made is that one universe proves that universes can exist.
You’re a bold man to say that an existent universe doesn’t show that universes can exist. Calling that extraoplation “Total horse manure” takes it a step beyond bold, mind you.
If you read only the first sentence, then that’s all he does. We were talking about the multiverse theory, which he was supporting. It’s the theory that is an extrapolation from one example. (And, he went on to more than just say that universes can exist… Let’s read a little further along, shall we?)
See how he, (and the theory,) assumes the existence of other universes?
This universe exists with certain values for physical constants.
Assume that other universes exist.
Assume that they have different values for said constants.
You’re done… The values of constants in our universe is “explained” with no further thought required. Though there is nothing to say that the assumptions in 2 and 3 are true, and nothing to suggest why they should be either.
I did go and reread the arguments, and I stand by my comment.
Christians believe lots of things about salvation - another argument against its accuracy, since you think such an important point would be made very clear - but those who believe salvation is only achievable by accepting Christ should wonder why the divinity of Christ (and even his existence, though I accept that) is so ambiguous. When we teach our children, we don’t give them contradictory and fuzzy information, and then expect them to do well on the test.
I was referring to Christ’s resurrection. Think of how much better they could sell the product if they had Geraldo covering the tomb. The most important thing distinguishing Jesus from the other bozo Messiahs at the time was that he rose from the grave, right? Yet this most important story is described by contradictory accounts, we have vague stories, and the collateral events (earthquakes, random people rising from the dead and walking around) unaccountably never showed up in any historical records. It is almost like God doesn’t want us to believe.
Why would an inspired book look just like an uninspired one?
Explaining that the multiverse theory neatly explains the values of physical constants does not mean it is the only explanation, just that it is one. We might find a relationship between constants now thought to be fundamental that explains it also. And, as he says, what we are doing is looking for evidence which will either refute or support the theory. No one has faith in it, no one worships it. That’s the difference between science and religion. Science abandons theories shown to be counterfactual, which is why science abandoned the theory that the Bible has anything useful to say about the universe.
Ok, since I believe Voyager to be an intelligent and rational person, and intellectually honest, I don’t have to go look at the arguments myself. Voyager has said he did his due diligence… oh, what the heck, it should be a laugh.
Since ch4rl3s asked if he was denying the Argument from Nonbelief existed, (from now on called ANB,) and Voyager said it was actually the Argument from Reasonable Disbelief, (ARDB,) and then stood by that statement, I should quickly find that ANB doesn’t exist.
Hu…?? I find at least four formulations of the argument… that’s kind of odd. I feel Voyager should have admitted to that. Maybe the existence of it was unimportant? So, I certainly shouldn’t find that ANB was formulated as an improvement on ARDB… Because then you would have to acknowledge and deal with it on it’s own terms and not just stand by your ARDB statements…
Wha…??? I’m feeling a bit shaken on Voyagers credibility here… but, maybe, maybe… There still might be a way around this… Maybe… It absolutely has to be the case that you can’t make the argument that the existence of a “God gene” has any bearing on the ANB, and Voyager found it easy to dismiss, and was just remiss in describing his objection…
Let’s take a look…
Hu…Wha…??? This can’t be true…
Not sure why c) is necessary, but since these propositions are almost universally believed, they could be argued as part of a god gene. Cultural indoctrination could account for discrepancies. Even cultures that may not believe b) seem to agree that god is interested and willing to do good things for people who act properly.
This argument is instantly problematic with the existence of a god gene…
A god gene allows the argument here, that rational nonbelief is irrelevant to the proposition, which is the opportunity to love god. An inborn desire to believe in god automatically provides the basic opportunity to love god, even if people make the decision to disbelieve later.
(The fourth argument I mentioned, [and there may be more, didn’t bother to check further,] is not immediately assailable with just the existence of a God gene since it includes elements that really can’t be argued as being part of such a gene, such as the belief in Jesus as savior.
There are other aspects of all of these arguments that are problematic, but…
The real point is that not a single one of the propositions that should have been true if Voyager was rational, and intellectually honest have any basis in reality. How on earth am I supposed to have a rational conversation with him? This totally destroys any credibility he may have had. He either can’t recognise an argument against his position, or won’t.
I really really thought Voyager was a more rational discussion partner than Der Trihs before this, but now I have to wonder how to have any sort of discussion at all.
I will continue to address the current posts, but you have so little credibility left, that I really think we’re done. I just don’t know how to argue with someone who claims ANB, an argument atheists use, doesn’t exist, then claims that I was misrepresenting ARDB, (when ANB is supposed to be a succesor to it, an “improvement,”) and then can’t or won’t see, (or won’t admit,) that the existence of the god gene has a bearing on them when it obviously does.
Is the existence of other possible theories proposed by other scientists an argument against the accuracy of all of them? Atheists believe a lot of things too. Do you believe that the “Problem of Evil” has been “solved” by Der Trihs’ insistence that only one factor, (the issue of suffering,) has any bearing? Do you agree with him on that one?
First: the argument I was making was that your previous statement implied an admission on your part that the bible was as historically accurate as could be expected. That seemed an important admission, as it was the best I had seen, and I was willing to discuss things starting from that point.
Now, I’m assuming you didn’t buy Der Trihs’ one factor argument, but atheists still seem to fixate on one single factor and ignore everything else…
Second: Why would you assume that the only possible thing that could be inspired or inspiring about a book would be its historical accuracy?
What does science have to say about how to be a better person? What does it have to say about what “better” entails in the first place? Why do you assume that the only important things in the universe are ones that provide a better than expected description of **one aspect **of it? (and the one aspect you pick.)
You assume that God needs everyone’s belief right now. I counter that by suggesting that it might not be necessary, now, that they aren’t trying to sell the product now, but everyone will still be given a chance. And you go right on assuming that they must be trying to sell the product now. Fixating on one aspect above all others, (again,) and assuming its relevance long after it has ceased to have any relevance in the conversation. When I say, “they aren’t trying to sell the product now,” your assumption that they must be trying to sell the product now, has no more bearing.
You have very little credibility, (actually, none with me,) so I have no trust that you have actually read the accounts, or could tell a contradictory account if you read it. I’ve read the accounts. They seem very consistant to me. and the “contradictory” aspects make sense and lend more credibility to my mind. If you get several eyewitness accounts of an event, you never get the same story every time. there are differences. One account leaves out people that other accounts say were there. Either they don’t remember them, or didn’t think they were important to the story. Some accounts include aspects that other witnesses couldn’t have actually known. One witness may find a particular event more important than others seemed to find it. And in all this they have a slightly different recall of the events they do agree on. We expect this. If several witnesses in a trial tell exactly the same story, we suspect collusion. Discrepancies lend credibility to the overall story. I find the accounts amazingly consistent considering that they were written down 40 years after the events in question.
I’ve already said that the point is not for everyone to believe now. You keep fixating on it even though I keep denying it, like Der Trihs fixated on suffering. And actually, I have to almost agree with him. Suffering is a very important factor from my understanding, too. Leave people the option to make their own choices in an environment where they can reasonably disbelieve they are being watched, and let them learn what their own choices and own understanding lead to. It is important that people see what suffering they create when they think they know everything. And then prove his existence and show what is possible when people interact based on love and understanding. And then give them the test. I’ve already said this.
fixate much? You won’t have fuzzy information on the test.
Since I can see no logical argument running through this post, I’ll respond point by point. Some of the quotes, especially at the top, seem to be implied as coming from me, but don’t.
I never said that ANB doesn’t exist - just that I’m not particularly interested in it. Remember, this thread wasn’t about god in any case.
I don’t believe I’ve ever mentioned the God gene. Even if such a thing exists, genetic diversity would assure us that not all of us have it. I don’t, and neither does most of my family. I can trace what I believe is atheism back on my mothers side for well over 100 years.
Universally believed? a) historically has been a group of beings, not one.
b) is fairly recent - most ancient gods played with humanity, and the God I grew up with promised not to kill all of us again, but had no problem with chunks of humanity being slaughtered by other chunks. c) isn’t true for Judaism, for instance. Reincarnation might be an afterlife in a sense, but not so the reincarnated soul remembers. This seems to be extremely Christian-centric, and seems to ignore a good bit of humanity.
It is hard to distinguish religious belief based on a god gene from religious belief based on social conditioning. If god created a god gene to cause us to inherently love him, he would have made sure we all had it. Besides my personal lack of it, the existence of atheism in people for which it was a death sentence also is evidence against its universality. Might I add that God genes proposed give general spiritual experiences, not belief in a specific god. If it did, it wouldn’t have taken so long for the god of your choice to become obvious.
(The fourth argument I mentioned, [and there may be more, didn’t bother to check further,] is not immediately assailable with just the existence of a God gene since it includes elements that really can’t be argued as being part of such a gene, such as the belief in Jesus as savior.
Here I am totally confused. Are you saying I think these propositions are true? That I think they are not true?
I have plenty of credibility in the real world, thanks, and I suspect rather more here than you have. I can make a logical argument, for instance.
I’ve read a fairly lengthy monograph that responds to most theistic arguments, and I don’t recall ANB in there. I actually tried to stay away from this discussion here, it not being interesting. My argument about expected evidence is in response to the proposition that is the title of this thread, and has nothing to do with gods - I’ll say why in a bit.
Actually, it does. Scientific theories in a context where many conflicting theories have equally good evidence supporting them are clearly weaker than one in which there are few if any well supported countervailing theories. For instance, string theory is far weaker than the Big Bang theory.
Remember, the problem of evil only exists for supposedly omnibenevolent gods. It is not a problem at all for a god like Odin. In addition, the problem of natural evil is the only interesting one. And I have no idea of what you mean by it being “solved.”
As expected for a book written at the time by humans. If you took me to mean as good as can be expected for a book inspired by a god, you’re dead wrong.
It seems you don’t understand what inspired means in this context. It means god propelled the hand of those who wrote it. Now, if we wish to test the proposition that the Bible was inspired, we need to test the accuracy of its statements. Some cannot be tested, such as statements of God’s intentions. But if the inspiration includes statements about the historical record, and these statements match what was believed at the time but not what turns out to be the case, you have problems. If you propose that Shakespeare is inerrant, you would be shaken by the existence of a mechanical clock in Roman times. No doubt a Shakespearean believer would claim it is symbolic or something, but the rest of us would consider the proposition falsified.
??? Facts about the universe, of course. Science has no claim to make you or me or anyone a better person. We have ethics and philosophy for that. The relevance, such as it is, is that if you want me to consider that the Bible should be listened to more than your average self-help book, you need to support its special authority. Knowing things about the universe only available by transmission through a deity might be one way - but it fails that test badly.
Not at all. In my former religion God didn’t particularly care if anyone outside the tribe believed or not - certainly there was no penalty for not believing. In Christianity god doesn’t need belief (though he sure wants praise) but the penalty for disbelief is rather great. If he loved us, he’d do a better job telling us. If you loved humanity, and had a product that cured cancer, AIDS, and warts, we’d wonder if you buried your ads at the back of the National Enquirer and absolutely refused to submit it to tests. If you had the product we’d wonder if you cared at all about humanity, and we’d more likely think you were selling snake oil.
I pass wind in the general direction of your opinion of my credibility. In alt.atheism someone published the Easter challenge each year - asking for a logical explanation of the contradictions. No one succeeded. I’m quite familiar with your excuses. Small differences in the stories are expected, but if your car accident involves two trucks by one witness and two Smart Cars by another, one must doubt. In any case, I was not brought up drinking the Kool-Aid, and I got taught by people who could read the Bible in Hebrew. Jesus deliberately tried to fulfill some of the prophecies, others were marked as fulfilled by making up stories about going to Bethlehem, and non-prophecies (virgin birth) were oddly fulfilled anyway - through the mistranslation of the author of Matthew. The important prophecies were not fulfilled at all. It is odd how prophecies supposedly fulfilled before the book was written are done perfectly, those supposedly to be fulfilled after not so much.
Who appointed you Pope? If it is not important that everyone believes now, you can call the missionaries back, perhaps. When you expect someone to make his own choice, you provide him with clear and consistent evidence. God seems to be like someone who gives a kid the wrong multiplication tables, and then gets mad because the kids gets a bad score on a math test.
I can see the argument that free will implies that some people will make others suffer. I don’t see the argument that those little babies had to die in the tsunami for the greater glory of god. No free will there at all. If even one baby died who did not have to, your omnipotent god is no better than a mass murderer.
If God created the world, he created one that makes it look like he doesn’t exist, and he created one that contradicts his own holy book. All of these problems are neatly resolved by the lack of any god,
Heck, even putting aside the problem of proving God exists, there’s the problem of proving that any human religion has come even close to accurately describing God and God’s nature, however vaguely.
There is going to be some repetition in this post, since a slightly different take on the same quotes explains several points. Apologies in advance, but it really seems necessary.
Let’s start here:
which quotes??? the two at the top that, from the context, must be from the previously supplied Arguments from nonbelief???
Let’s look at the sequence.
You said:
I said:
Then, you said:
Then I said:
(there were other comments in there, but they don’t change the context.)
Then I quoted from the link. and continued:
Clearly, anyone following the argument will see that I wasn’t quoting you.
I looked through my post, and those obviously-not-from-you quotes are the only ones I can see you thinking may be implied to be from you. Can you please tell me what quotes you thought I was attributing to you?
Next:
Really? you said that? Let’s look.
I said:
You said:
I said:
Then, you said:
First: that does not, in any way, ever, say that you just weren’t interested. It says you stand by your comment. And your comment was…
Which, cleary implies that the argument does not exist on the page I linked to.
Now, I suspected that you weren’t interested, but only because I knew quite well that the argument did exist on that page, several versions, like I said.
Suggesting that maybe you felt it was unimportant. But, and let’s be clear, that is not what you said. And would not be clear to someone not following the argument extremely closely… Like the people you felt you had to tell
So, you suspected that people weren’t following closely, but then made a statement that would be misunderstood by any one not following closely. Did you intend to misdirect them? Or do you actually think you said something you clearly didn’t say?
Next section: (from now on, a line like the one above will separate thoughts, mostly.)
I will have to make the argument again, but simpler so you can understand it. (It was understandable already, but you clearly didn’t get it.)
I made three assumptions:
Voyager is rational and intelligent.
Voyager is intellectually honest.
Voyager did due diligence when rereading the arguments.
Then I made 3 propositions that should follow from the assumptions, (each of which I dealt with afer I made it. But for clarity, I will list them together here. Since that may be the step that confused you.)
A. From what he said, the ANB probably shouldn’t exist on the linked page.
B. If they do exist, they certainly shouldn’t be listed as an improvement on the ARDB
C. Absolutely No version of ANB, as formulated in those links, can be threatened by the existence of a god gene.
I’ve already dealt with Proposition A.
Prop B. ANB shouldn’t be listed as an improvement on ARDB since you claimed :
Do I have to explain this proposition? I think I do. Since you claimed the actual argument was ARDB and not ANB, I shouldn’t find that ANB was proposed to improve ARDB. (And remember, you claimed to stand by that statement. I have to say that since you have already tried to claim you weren’t saying that.)
Prop C. Why can’t any version of ANB be threatened by a god gene? Because that was the whole point of the example:
And I know you read the second quote; you quoted it. I assumed you were following the discussion. And then I assumed you did due diligence in reading the link. And I assumed you were following the argument I was making with the 3 assumptions and the 3 propositions.
So, it turns out none of those propositions is true. But, I claim they follow from the assumptions. So, one or more of the assumptions must be false. I’m really doubting all of them about now.
Really? You didn’t see that I made some assumptions about your credibility, made some propositions that should be true if those assumptions were true. That’s a logical argument. Take a look again. I say, basically:
Since I believe Voyager is credible, and since he made certain statements, (in response to other statements,) I should quickly find that ANB doesn’t exist on that page. It’s even laid out as a logical argument. That makes me question your rationality and intelligence.
And you didn’t appear to know where those quotes came from at the top. That brings into question your due diligence. And If you come back and say, (which I’ve already suggested you might,) that you did know, but were only saying that for your friends, who weren’t actually following the discussion, but were only taking your word for it. Then, that questions your intellectual honesty. Since then, your other arguments, (namely that you stand by your first statement, but weren’t saying ANB didn’t exist, or that you said you just weren’t interested, when you clearly didn’t say any such thing,) would be deliberately misleading, or deliberately dishonest. Or you could really believe you’re saying things you aren’t and that questions your intelligence again. Now, I know there are several thoughts in one paragraph, it’s a little tricky, so, I don’t expect you to follow it.
You had never heard of the Argument from Nonbelief, (ANB,) and you never mentioned the god gene. Why did you feel compelled to discuss it then? I only ever mentioned the ANB in terms of the god gene. That was the whole argument.
The only reason to interject yourself in the argument, if you had no interest in the god gene, was if you didn’t believe I had correctly identified the argument as ANB and really thought it didn’t exist, and the real argument was ARDB.
So, then, you are only deluding yourself that you never said the ANB didn’t exist.
You don’t know if it exists, but you know for a fact that it wouldn’t reside in the 99.9% of DNA that is identical for every human. What a laugh. Could you say, “genetic diversity would assure us that not all of us have a ‘heart gene,’ or a ‘brain gene,’ or a ‘human intellect gene?’” You know that a desire to seek god isn’t an inherent, but emergent property of the suite of genes that make us human? And you know that your family didn’t pass atheism on culturally? So, has your family been conducting some sort of scientific experiment for 100 years? Each child is adopted out so the beliefs of the birth parents can’t influence the results? Your mother couldn’t have passed her beliefs on to you naturally? She never mentioned her views, and they in no way influenced you?
You’re trying to have it both ways. Like the man on trial claiming, “I didn’t do it, but if I did, I had a good reason.”
And if you know the penalty is great, it’s because of what? That you’re assuming they need to sell the product now. If they aren’t selling the product to everyone now, then there doesn’t have to be a penalty for disbelief. If you are given a chance to believe, then there is no current penalty for disbelief. I think it’s quite clear that you’re assuming things you think you aren’t.
You’re an atheist, but you had a former religion. But, you were always an atheist? So, you never believed your former religion? Why were you there? I’m assuming that I was wrong about that science experiment where your family would have all their children adopted out. And I suspect your atheist mother didn’t make you go. So,if you weren’t lying about never having had a desire to seek god, your father must have forced you to go as a recalcitrant child? In which case, I have doubts that you had a firm grasp of your former religion’s beliefs.
I do not doubt that in the least. I am absolutely convinced that you have more credibility here than I do. I have no doubt that when you were saying “It is not argument from disbelief… but argument from reasonable disbelief,” that people believed you. That they were convinced my argument could not be found where I had linked. You seemed to think that. And I am thoroughly convinced that when you said, “I never said that ANB doesn’t exist - just that I’m not particularly interested in it.” the same people believed you, (even though your posts don’t show a statement of disinterest,) and convinced themselves that they never had the previous belief. And I am sure you convinced yourself that you never had the previous belief either. Even though your posts clearly suggest that you did. I don’t see how anyone could buy that argument, but, I’m sure they do.
I’m not arguing for popularity, and I’m not swayed by popularity. The number of people who would believe you over me doesn’t concern me in terms of the argument. It does, however, make me sad for the state of humanity.
Still thinking you’re taking the test now, that God must be trying to sell you now, that he couldn’t give you your chance later, even though I’ve suggested otherwise, over and over. Looks like a severe case of one track mind, not paying attention to the actual arguments, and making one up on your own to assign to me. Don’t you remember me telling Der Trihs that if you aren’t starting from a basis I accept, you aren’t challenging my beliefs…
But, I have to back off on the assertion against fuzzy information. I don’t have all the answers. It’s true that we’re dealing with fuzzy information, now. And still, I know of a human situation where the students aren’t given the information they need in order to pass the test. They have to find it on their own, and they aren’t told what they should find or how they should go about it. Of course, it’s an advanced degree, and a test we don’t give to contentious children expecting to be spoonfed every bit of information while at the same time demanding that no one tell them anything.
Since that is the only sense in which the question has any meaning, I generally assume that it’s assumed. Can we assume that now?
Der Trihs was stating that any suffering proved that an omnibenevolent god didn’t exist. His proposition was a “Problem of Evil.” I can see that you don’t buy that. As for “solved”: do you know how a problem can have a solution? If you have a problem, and you solve it, you find the solution. The question was whether an omnibenevolent god could exist in a world with suffering. And he claimed to have the answer, to have solved it. Just not in those words. I don’t know how you didn’t know what solved meant in that context.
This seems to be an “answer” to a question you think was asked. I can only guess what the question might have been. Because, it wasn’t asked. It seems that you think that was the obvious answer to the non-existent question. And you seem to be confused that I could ask that question. Well, let me relieve your confusion: I didn’t ask that question. Your brain is putting words in my mouth. Which would explain why there so often seems to be a disconnect between the argument I’m making and the argument you give an answer to. And why you keep answering the same questions even after I deny that was the question I was asking.
There’s no reason to argue on that basis. Too bad, 'cause you have had some good comments.
I’m not expecting to “prove” the existence of God or his nature. That’s not going to happen.
I am only trying to say that I have a reasonable position. And I know that the people I’m arging with are not the ones who might accept that.
Yep, if people are happier, and see that their lives are better and the lives of people around them are better, you’re right, they won’t want to criticize that. And that provides a reasonable reason to do it.
But, I’m not worried about people criticizing my “pet beliefs.” I don’t have all the answers, but, I’m not worried. They say, “show us the objective proof.” I say, “there isn’t any objective proof; the evidence is personal, relational, subjective.” And the criticism takes the form of, “show us the objective proof.” I’m not worried by the arguments put forward by parrots who were taught a few good lines.
An agnostic friend of mine told me once, that theists believe a proposition that can’t be disproven, but atheists believe a proposition that can never be verified. And he didn’t understand anyone who could categorically believe and vehemently promote a position that can never be shown to be true.
If your position can’t be verified, then there are other rational positions.
Very good. I had never heard of that before.
Why would an inspired book look just like an uninspired one?