I don’t know about Uzi, but I have already stated in either this thread, or Science V. Religion (which you also are taking part in, and which feels like the same debate), I would recognize proof if shown to me. I would not just reject because it is outside my frame of reference. I probably would because it is not really evidence, as much as an appeal to emotion, but not because of conclusions I have already drawn.
I would argue that there’s never a choice to be made in the arena of belief. Either:
- The evidence is sufficiently compelling, in which case (as you say) there’s no choice to be made [but to believe]; or
- The evidence is not sufficiently compelling, in which case there’s no choice to be made but NOT to believe.
By not providing me with the evidence I need to believe hypothetical-God isn’t maintaining my free will; it’s denying me the opportunity to believe.
Again, I cannot choose to believe in something, absent compelling evidence.
This wasn’t directed at me, but I think it’s ill-phrased:
Please make room for the possibility that people may have other reasons for not believing that proof.
Daniel
I missed this earlier. How have you falsified it?
I’ve sought; I haven’t found.
The comment was kind of throwaway, however, as I don’t consider that to be a properly formulated hypothesis. What does “seek” mean? What does “find” mean? What time parameter are we talking about? What may we expect to find? How will we know when we’ve found it?
Without these details, we don’t have something that can be replicated.
I once had a Hare Krishna fundie tell me that if I would just do the Hare Krishna chant long enough, I’d realize the truth of their sect. I tried it for a bit, but apparently not long enough, because I still don’t believe in the blue love god.
Do you believe his claim is accurate? If not, why not? If so, why are you not a Hare Krishna?
Daniel
But you decide what compels. That’s what I’m saying.
Oh, I do, Left Hand of Dorkness. One reason. There is one and only one reason to reject it, just as there is one and only one reason to accept it: reject or accept the possibily that God exists. After that, all else is incontrovertible unless logic itself is flawed.
[QUOTE]
Agreed. I recognize “Seek and you shall find” is not a scientific hypothesis.
I have been attempting in both of these threads to make a comparison between the search for truth in the scientific arena and in the spiritual arena. What I hear in both threads is “I won’t believe until I see repeatable predictions that meet current scientific standards.” It seems to me that if everybody felt that way science could not have advanced at all. Karl Pooper expresses what I have been trying to get to.
" At the same time I realized that such myths may be developed,
and become testable; that historically speaking all ? or very
nearly all ? scientific theories originate from myths, and
that a myth may contain important anticipations of scientific
theories. Examples are Empedocles’ theory of evolution by
trial and error, or Parmenides’ myth of the unchanging block
universe in which nothing ever happens and which, if we add
another dimension, becomes Einstein’s block universe (in
which, too, nothing ever happens, since everything is,
four-dimensionally speaking, determined and laid down from the
beginning). I thus felt that if a theory is found to be
non-scientific, or “metaphysical” (as we might say), it is not
thereby found to be unimportant, or insignificant, or
“meaningless,” or “nonsensical.”[4 <#note4>] But it cannot
claim to be backed by empirical evidence in the scientific
sense ? although it may easily be, in some genetic sense, the
“result of observation.”
Thanks to Liberal for that link. Great article, much appreciated.
Several people in these threads have asserted that if something is unfalsefiable by scientific standards then it is meaningless and unimportent. Isn’t Karl Popper saying that is not the case. Belief, superstition and myth may not meet scientific standards but are a nessecary component of the search for knowledge.
The nature of faith in God is very personnel. I have also explored several methods that just didn’t work for me and have gone through long periods where I stopped seeking. It has been posited that God knows what it takes for each of us to believe. I would agree that God does know. Then the question seems to be “Why doesn’t he do that now?”
Perhaps it is a process that is underway as we speak. You have freewill and have a hand in when that will or will not happen. Liberals explanation above is eloquent and beautiful {I got a little vaklempt}
When Paul was struck down on the road to Damascus he might have got up shook himself off and said “Musta been the mushrooms”
Why didn’t he? God only knows.
I think the discussion of the nature of belief and choice being voluntary or involuntary is very interesting and worthy of its own thread. What say you?
nI my opinion, for what it’s worth, I would like to hear what convincing evidence that Liberal believes I would reject out of hand, first.
On the contrary: if something compels, that means it’s compulsory, and that I don’t decide.
Again, this isn’t just hairsplitting or wordplay. I think a better word is “conclude,” as in, I conclude that the evidence is (or is not) compelling.
You may show Arthur Conan Doyle’s pictures of fairies to me and to Joe; I may conclude that they don’t provide compelling evidence of the existence of fairies, whereas Joe concludes that they do. I could not have concluded otherwise: I could not have chosen to believe that they provided compelling evidence. The best I could have done was to pretend to have made such a choice. (and I could have chosen to pretend that, of course).
Similarly, I do not believe Joe could have chosen to find the evidence non-compelling.
I disagree: as I have stated before, I agree with those philosophers who believe that the proof does not state anything meaningful. There are other reasons to reject it as well.
Daniel
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Good enough. You originally [url=http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5912261&postcount=125\called Jesus and the Pope “scientists,” and offered, as a specific predictive hypothesis proposed by these scientists “Seek and ye shall find.” If I understand it, you’re conceding now that you were mistaken to do so, which is a good thing.
FWIW, I do not think that science is the only way to arrive at truth: I’ve never heard a good scientific explanation for the fact that I find daffodils to be lovely flowers, and yet I firmly believe that to be the case. I’ve got no problem with people who believe in personal revelation of God. I do have a problem with the claim that “Seek and ye shall find” is a replicable, predictive hypothesis for any given ye, or that the scientific process favors the hypothesis that God exists.
Daniel
Left Hand of Dorkness
Upon reading and reevaluating my posts and your responses, I believe that your semantical analysis is superior to mine. Yours requires fewer entities to explain, and comes from a positive ontological claim. I hereby withdraw my assertion that belief (in the sense we’ve discussed it) is voluntary. I stand corrected.
World’s worst coding!
Daniel
Cool, and thanks!
So, working backwards, does this mean that it would not be a violation of free will for God to provide me or Czarcasm with the necessary evidence to convince us of God’s existence, since free will doesn’t enter into the process of belief anyway?
There may, of course, be other reasons why God wouldn’t provide this evidence.
Daniel
Let’s take this step by step. I’ll ask you one question at a time. It will have a yes or no answer. If we can agree on a definition of God, what it is we are to prove about Him, and whether it is possible that God exists, then nothing remains but drawing inferences by rules of logic.
-
Is Supreme Being (a being that is ontologically perfect; i.e., a being that exists in all possible worlds) a reasonable definition of God?
-
Does proof of God’s existence in actuality constitute sufficient proof of Her existence?
-
Is it possible that God exists?
-
If it is the case that God, as defined, exists in all possible worlds, then is Her existence necessary?
-
If it is the case that God does not exist in all possible worlds, then is it the case that Her existence is not necessary in any possible world?
-
Is it the case that if God exists in all possible worlds, that She exists in actuality?
-
Is it the case that either God exists necessarily or else She doesn’t?
-
Is it the case that if She doesn’t exist necessarily, then Her existence is not necessary in any possible world (as in 5)?
-
Is it the case that if (7) and (8) are true, then it is the case that either She exists necessarily or else Her exisence is not nessary in any possible world?
-
Is it the case that if A implies B, then Not B implies Not A (rule of modus tollens)?
-
Is it the case that, if (10) is true and the necessity of (4) is negated, the necessity that She does not exist necessarily implies that She does not exist in all possible worlds?
-
If (9) and (11) are true, then is it the case that either She exists necessarily or else it is necessary that She does not exist?
-
If it is possible that God exists (from 3), is it the case that it is not necessary that She does not exist?
-
If (13) is true, then is the statement “it is necessary that She does not exist” false?
-
If (14) is true, then is the is it the case that She exists necessarily (see 12)?
-
If A implies B, and A is true, then is B true?
-
If (15), (16) and (6) are true, then does She exist in actuality?
Well, I can’t speak for either of you, but in my case, the problem was that I wanted evidence of the wrong thing. It was upon the moment of my conversion that the understanding of exactly What God is converged with the evidence that I required. The whole realization was something along the lines of, “Well, shit! Why didn’t You just say so!?” I think it is reasonable to say that convergence depends on timing. Every person is different. Perhaps for you, it simply is not yet time. You never know what’s around the corner.
Sure, and I don’t deny any of that. But it’s also reasonable to say that you and I require different evidence to reach the same conclusion. My lack of precognition just means that I don’t deny that this afternoon I’ll suddenly believe in God. I highly doubt it, but it’s possible.
Many people die atheists, never having observed evidence that they find compelling in the existence of a deity. My suspicion is that I’ll die the same way–but of course I could be wrong.
Daniel
That’s actually what I meant when I said that every person is different. Every person requires different evidence and every consciousness is closed. Thus, it makes sense that revelation occurs in one’s own awareness at the most propitious time.
I know exactly what you mean.
If death were an obstacle, then Godness Itself would be moot.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
I’ll ask you one question at a time. It will have a yes or no answer.
Yes, and no. Most conceptions of god would explain a creature that has created all matter. However, I see room for an infinite number of universes. I see it as possible that a “god” might have created some, but not all universe
Yes.
Possibly, althought the lack of signs that exist don’t seem to point to the god desccribed in the koran, torah, or bible. Maybe the greek gods.
Didn’t I already answer this in #1? It is possible for a “god” to not have created all of reality.
Yes.
Nope, not really
No, I see it as possibly she does, and possibly she doesn’t. I live my life beliving that there is no god, but I do not see it as an either or question.
Yes.
As for the rest, I need to be presented with indisputable facts to make with the a=b stuff. For all I know, my premise might be wrong, and the fact that an argument is valid doesn’t necessarily mean that its conclusion holds, if started from false premises, as indeed my answers might be.
…unless one never concludes that God exists.
Which is what I believe :).
As near as I can tell, we agree on most issues here, and have identified the ones we’re unlikely to agree on.
Daniel
Scott_plaid
Well, let’s start with number 6, to which you answered no. Is there any reason why the Law of Excluded Middle should not apply in this case only, or do you reject it altogether in every case? And while we’re at it, to save us both some time, are there also other rules of inference for Kripke systems that you reject either from time to time or altogether?