# Reasons for belief and disbelief in God **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 28, 2006, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964 "2006-01-28T07:02:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/241 "2006-02-02T18:18:03Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Are you sure you understand the difference between [physicalism](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/), which this thread _is_ about, and [utilitarianism](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/), which this thread is _not_ about? See not everyone has read every fancy philosophical school like you have, and just because they haven’t doesn’t mean they don’t know what they are talking about, and perhaps by limiting yourself rigidly to this massive number of facts in your brain you are limiting the possibility for dialogue with other people. When I said “utilitarian” I was using the word as it would be used in every day speech, in that it was a response to your synonymizing optional with unecessary. So that’s a very utilitarian take on it, and you are eliminating things from your phenomenalogical field because you are synonymizing optional and unecessary. That’s what I meant by your utilitarian point of view. > [@](#): > > [Argument ad populum](http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#populum).Then you and I differ in the importance we attach to Ockham’s principle of parsimony. Now see I am not arguing that something is true or not true, you are so stuck on your quest for facts that you eliminate understanding from your viewpoint. I am not trying to get you to recognize facts I am trying to get you to understand alternative perspectives. Perhaps your neat and tidy little world in your brain is arranged exactly how you like it, but you are eliminating whole layers of reality from your view by rigidly adhering to your own subjectivity which you have convinced yourself is more objective than the subjectivity of others. You enter into a debate about the existance of God but you refuse to accept that the deists might be using a slightly different dictionary than yours. You think your Dictionary is more standard than it is simply because you have limited yourself to social groupings that confirm your bias. It’s very clear that a lot of people in this world do not share your view of the words and what they mean. > [@](#): > > If you use words in ways I simply _do not accept_, like God = existence, universe, consciousness or whatever, there is little more I can do than tell you so and leave it at that. I care little what you think of _my_ (largely standard) dictionary, so I’m puzzled as to why you get so irritated when others don’t think much of _your_ highly personal one. Tomato, tomahto and all that. Again I think your dictionary is less standard than you believe it is. The dictionary for one is written by people who are rigid academics, so you can find perjorative contexts written into the book that is supposed to be teaching people what the words mean. Again this whole discussion about God comes down to our semantic framework, and you can’t win the argument by limiting the semantic framework to one that supports your side. > [@](#): > > Then go ahead and keep using your peculiar language of **mswas** -_ese_, but don’t be surprised if people keep telling you time and again that **it** is the very thing which inhibits effective communication. This doesn’t happen to me that often outside of the Straight Dope or similar circles where people get an erection from being an intellectual. Outside of such circles I find people are much more willing to accept a certain elasticity of language, and understand that the substance of the idea being communicated are more important than the words being used to communicate it. > [@](#): > > The unique set of memories is encoded in the neural structure, itself housed in the human body. I assume that by “imprint upon time-space” you mean some _effect_ that a person has after their arrangement disintegrates (death), such as memories of that person in other people’s neural structures, or a posthumously published book. Yes I mean that, as well as I mean the effect that the person’s movements had on the wind patterns, how their own electromagnetic field interacted with the electromagnetic fields of other entities, how the movement of things was affected by the person’s gravitational field, how it was affected by edifices they helped construct, how it was affected by organizational structures to which they belonged, how it was affected by how they voted in the election, how the quanta was affected by their observation of it. > [@](#): > > No, anymore than the footprint **is** the shoe. Those unique memories themselves are **no longer accessible**. The only accessible memories are of the _housing those memories resided in_. When I die, nobody will access **my** memories, only memories **of my housing** (whose actions were caused by those memories together with sensory inputs, innate cognitive modules, and perhaps some random element). Fair enough. > [@](#): > > The self changes continually: new memories are stored and others become lost. Insofar as caterpillars possess neural memory in order to have a ‘self’, the same would presumably apply (though on a far simpler level). Of course, what I think you’re _really_ asking is how we justify calling one thing a caterpillar and another thing a pupa, or a butterfly. And the answer is: because that is _what human language **is** _ - a means to arbitrate or distinguish entities. > If they had no interaction with them at all, I couldn’t determine _anything_ about them - that is what science is _about_. Ok, well we disagree that neural memory is the housing of the self. Certainly it is a PART of the housing of a human self, but every creature has an identity and is living a unique life and is aware of their own life. Why else would they avoid being killed? No I am not questioning the language you are using, what I am questioning is your inability to assimilate other semantic frameworks into your perception. I do not live in a world that lacks seperation, I live in the same world that you do, and I don’t find that suddenly all differentiation disappears simply because I move the boundaries around once in a while to see exactly what my perception is doing by attaching meaning to words and drawing lines of distinction. You and I are sharing our thoughts right now, we are firing synapses across vast distances and connecting them via intermediary technology, but we are still sharing parts of our consciousness merely by communicating, and google is caching all of that information into a global matrix of human consciousness. > [@](#): > > When attached, the memory-apparatus permanently receives signals from it (flat “monitoring” signals, usually), and thus can be said to be “part of me”. When removed, no signals are sent and it isn’t. So what? I think it’s fairly arbitrary to think that the brain is the seat of conscisousness, you are picking one piece of meat over another. Without the sensory input the memory apparatus does nothing. That’s like saying that the CPU is the whole computer. > [@](#): > > Actually, the brain has sensory apparatus _within_ it (ever had a headache?), and the processing in the retina leads most neuroanatomists to consider the retina to be part of the brain. So the brain might well be useless without sensory apparatus, but luckily it has plenty such apparatus built in. You heart/lungs point is a non sequitur: I wouldn’t survive in a vacuum, but Earth’s atmosphere is not part of me, either. The heart and lungs are part of me if, yet again, they are in permanent communication with the brain. The entire body is a sensory apparatus every last cell. Right, but you are DECIDING that the aatmosphere is not a part of you. Other people do not decide that quite so readily, and that doesn’t mean they are wrong and you are right or vice versa, it’s just a matter of what their conscious narrative, or your conscious narrative chooses to view as self/not self. I am not trying to convince you to believe things the way that I believe them, but it would be nice if I could peek through the veil and help you to understand the way that I view things as a Theist so that you can understand that it is not an inability to understand ockham’s razor or all your fancy scientific tools that makes one a Theist, that it’s not a matter of merely WANTING a big teddy bear in the sky to cling to, that it is a legitimate perceptual framework, one that may not work for you, but it does work for me. I am trying to help you to understand what it means to believe in God. > [@](#): > > But it isn’t. Whenever I lie down, jump or board any vehicle I break my connection. In any case, lumping all sensory input together as “the Earth” does not change the fact that it is still sensory **input**. And when you shed skin cells they are no longer part of your body, but that doesn’t mean they never were. I am merely challenging the notion that you are the sensory and cognitive apparatus, but that what you perceive is equally as much a part of yourself as what you perceive it with. You never stop being connected to things in the universe, you just change the configuration and create intermediaries. The universe is one contiguous energy that goes out and in, infinitely, and you are always a part of that. The ground that you walked on becomes an integral part of you because it helped shape your body, the way your feet move the curvature of your spine, and as you said, your memories. > [@](#): > > I repeat: Like, whatever. > And I just feel that your questions and critiques have absolutely no substance and are mere picayune wordplay. Seriously, I know the weak points in my own argument and I’d be overjoyed if you were to find them and debate them. But you’re not even close, instead preferring to continually berate me for not accepting your bungee-jump stretches of perfectly plain language. It is perfectly plain to you but clearly not perfectly plain to others. > [@](#): > > And fora like these are where the battle joins. You try to spread your meme, I try to spread mine, and the winner is the meme which transfers to the most new hosts, _ie._ whoever is most **convincing**. Fair enough. You will be assimilated. Resistance is Futile. > [@](#): > > **mswas** , I strongly suggest you _read some books_ on cognitive science and philosophy of the mind and come back when we can have a far more worthwhile conversation. “Consciousness explained” (Dennett) and “How the Mind Works” (Pinker) to start, then a must-read for you is “The Mind Does Not Work Like That” (Fodor), specifically abduction and modularity. I keep telling you that my position has all kinds of interesting gaps, but instead you prefer to continually bash your head against its strongest bulwarks. I would genuinely be _happy_ for you to find those gaps and have me on the ropes. This is just so _boring_. Well I am sorry that I am boring you, and I agree with you they are your strongest bulwarks, and that’s the essence of what I’ve been getting at. Our defenses maintain our ignorance. You might be interested in Robert Greene’s “The 48 Laws of Power” specifically the chapter about the dangers of remaining in a fortress. Erek ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/242 "2006-02-02T18:19:54Z")
**SentientMeat** Not all questions are a matter of correct and incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![Trust](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b38774/32.png) [@Trust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trust)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/243 "2006-02-02T18:49:54Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > The above is not an opinion but a factual observation. If you wish to dispute my assertion that we have no way to know that Christianity is true, please point out the evidence and shut me up. Your opinion is that simply because there is no factual evidence, that it implies that it is impossible for something to be true. This is a logical fallacy. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > we have writings of how Quetzalcoatl lived his life. We have writings of how Krishna and Buddha and Mohammed lived their lives. So what? So, thats evidence. I really do not care to argue about these points because it has nothing to do with the logic behind belief and all it is doing is showing that we have different definitions for evidence. I will fully admit that there is no factual evidence that shows that these people were who they were made out to be. Noone is arguing this with you. This still has nothing to do with logical arguments. You are merely shifting the concentration from logical arguments to your opinion of whether they are true or not. Since you are the one accusing people of being illogical, you must prove that we are being illogical. You have not even come close. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > 1.There is no eyewitness testimony of Jesus > 2. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Once again. According to logic, this does not rule out any possibilities. It simply does not prove them. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > [Sigh]…Nothing in my above statement is an opinion. All I dd was ask you a question? Can you answer it? I have never once claimed that there was a completely 100 percent way to find out what the truth is. If there was, we would have shown this argument a long time ago and be done with it. ---
**Author:** ![Trust](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b38774/32.png) [@Trust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trust)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/244 "2006-02-02T19:17:02Z")
\*\*Okay Dio, I have answered all of your pointless questions that led us nowhere. Now answer my questions so that we can pinpoint the exact area of our disagreements. If you have a problem with these statements, tell me why. I will break down everything into very fundamental logic so that there is almost no way to misunderstand me. 1. Faith is a set of principles or beliefs 2. Beliefs based on faith are impossible to prove true. (At the present time; this is referring to individual beliefs by themselves without taking into consideration whether they are contradicted later down the road) 3. Beliefs based on faith are impossible to prove false. (At the present time; this is referring to individual beliefs by themselves without taking into consideration whether they are contradicted later down the road) 4. If you can show a contradiction in a persons beliefs, then at least one of their beliefs is invalid. 5. Just because you do not know how something could work, it must not work. \*\* This is a logical fallacy. I don’t know every single way a car works. But we know it certainly does work. \*\* 6. When examining a persons faith (as a whole), you must examine all of the beliefs (where beliefs are premises). You cannot pick and choose. 6 cont.) The reason you cannot pick and choose which premises (beliefs) to consider is because certain beliefs might contradict an invalid argument. At first glance it might appear as an invalid argument without knowing all of the premises but this is only because you do not take into account all of the premises. 1. Since beliefs based on faith cannot be proven true or false, to claim that any faith (religion) is false, it requires that it be IMPOSSIBLE for their faith to be true. 2. For someone to claim that a certain faith is impossible, you must show contradictions. 3. We have established that God is not perfectly benevolent. 4. Because God is not perfectly benevolent, he cannot be benevolent. \*\* This is a logical fallacy. A parent who grounds their child is benevolent. \*\* 5. Because God is not required to do anything, he cannot do anything. \*\* This is a logical fallacy. Simply because God is not required to do anything does not mean that He is incapable of doing anything. \*\* 6. If there is one explanation for how something could work, it proves that it is not impossible for it to work. 7. Your set of beliefs or reasons have no bearing on whether something is logically valid or invalid. 8. Emotions have no bearing on whether something is logically valid or invalid. 9. It is possible for you to be wrong. 10. It is possible for me to be wrong. \*\* ---
**Author:** ![Trust](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b38774/32.png) [@Trust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trust)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/245 "2006-02-02T19:35:50Z")
Also tell me exactly where you disagree with Sentients response: “One can hold all kinds of strange premises but still combine them in a logical way. I’ll accept that Christian, Hindu or Norse theology might be logically valid, but since I dispute the truth of the initial premises I don’t accept that they’re logically sound.” Noone ever said that Christianity had all the answers. Noone ever said that you couldnt disagree with the premises. But for you to come on here and make such a bold statement as saying “It is logically impossible” for Christianity to be true just shows your ignorance. The entire point of this message board is to fight ignorance. You are only contributing to the ignorance. If you would accept the fact that you cannot prove any of the premises true or false, it would have been common sense to you from the beginning that you cannot find anything wrong with the logic. For you to claim otherwise means that you need to provide cold, hard proof. All you have given are possible ways that you cannot come up with a way that it works. Until you admit the fact that you cannot claim that it is logically impossible for Christianity to be true, you are doing everyone in here a diservice by lying. Please, give all your reasons for not believing in God. They are perfectly valid and actual allow us to get somewhere logically. What is not valid to claim that something is impossible when you can never prove that it is impossible. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/246 "2006-02-02T20:26:08Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > [_words_] Whatever. You asked me countless questions, I answered them as clearly and honestly as I could, and read what you posted in reply. I don’t know quite what more you’re expecting from me. > [@](#): > > You might be interested in Robert Greene’s “The 48 Laws of Power” specifically the chapter about the dangers of remaining in a fortress. I thought you meant Shakespeare’s contemporary, until I found [this](http://www.adstockweb.com/business-lore/The_48_Laws%20of_Power.htm) rather bland piece of fluff from that great literary period, the year 2000: \*Law 18 Do Not Build Fortresses to Protect Yourself – Isolation is Dangerous The world is dangerous and enemies are everywhere – everyone has to protect themselves. A fortress seems the safest. But isolation exposes you to more dangers than it protects you from – it cuts you off from valuable information, it makes you conspicuous and an easy target. Better to circulate among people find allies, mingle. You are shielded from your enemies by the crowd.\* There, I read it. Your turn. Dennett, Pinker, Fodor, or any other respected academic work on the subject of cognitive science or philosophy of mind. > [@](#): > > **SentientMeat** Not all questions are a matter of correct and incorrect. What. Ever. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/247 "2006-02-03T01:39:16Z")
> [@Wesley Clark](#): > > It may be. But as we become more technologically proficient the diseases will be fewer, easier to treat and easier to prevent. Overall I doubt technological advances will create more problems than they solve. > > The problem with the idea of suffering or Gods purpose for us is that life as we know it in the 21st century is totally artificial compared to how we were created. Humans evolved in groups of small tribes that were hunter/gatherers for tens of thousands of years, so did our ancestors over hundreds of thousands of years. Civilization with farming, domestication and a divistion of labor is only about 6000 years old, barely a blip on the timeline as far back as humans and our ancestors go. And life throughout most of civilization was totally different than life today. It was filled with childhood deaths, disease, famine, slavery and war. Alot of people in the world today don’t really have these problems anymore, at least nothing like they used to. You’re right. I’ve enjoyed science fiction novels that speak of the struggle of life after the nuclear holocaust, or a world controlled by super coorperations, and also the Star Trek story lines where Earth has progressed to a peaceful advanced society. Who knows what lies in store. I don’t think scientific advancements will prove that we don’t need to believe in God. I think it will help dispell a lot of the myth that surrounds religion as more of society has more scientific knowledge. Not having to struggle so hard for our daily bread may help more people have time for spiritual pursuits. We’ll see. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/248 "2006-02-03T02:29:34Z")
> [@Trust](#): > > This is not a problem. God can choose to do as he pleases. There is no possible way if you take into account all of the premises. I keep getting the feeling that you don’t really understand a lot of the terminology in this discussion. Do you actually know what a logical premise IS? Yes, an omnipotent God can do what he pleases, but any action which causes or allows evil is logically incompatible with the _premise_ that he is omnibenevolent. It doesn’t matter what his _reasons_ are. There is no conceivable reason that will make his actions logically compatible with goodness because all possible reasons are invented by God himself and may be changed or eliminated at his whim. To suggest that God causes or allows evil for a reason is to say that God has to follow a _method_ to get what he wants. To say that God has to follow a method is to say that he is not omnipotent. To say that he chooses to allow evil if he doesn’t have to is to say that he’s not all good. > [@](#): > > Incorrect logic. This is mere opinion. You are under the assumption that choices are effects. Simply because you cannot imagine how choices can be made that are not effects, does prove that they are false. If choices are not effects then they are random. If they are not random then they are effects. There are no other logical possibilities. A choice is either caused or uncaused. If it’s caused then it’s an effect. If it’s uncaused, then it’s random. If you have a logical way out of this box then please state it. Simply claiming that some unknown answer must exist does not address the problem. > [@](#): > > We are not programs under my set of beliefs. If this is your belief that is fine. I do not attempt to tell you that your set of beliefs are impossible because they could very well be. We are not talking about beliefs but logical possibilities. > [@](#): > > No. Free will is possible. For you to claim that something is impossible just because you do not know of a way for it to be is incorrect logic. Once again, God does not have to do any method. He chooses to. Notice the difference. You can’t resolve logical contradictions by proposing that there is some secret, unknown solution that we’re all unaware of. > [@](#): > > God chooses to be just to his people. It is impossible to prove or disprove assumptions that require faith. > > I am not God. Why are you asking me? > > Because of the premise that God is just to his people. This would be a contradiction. He make justice anyway he chooses. He choose Christ. All of this is circular. You keep saying that God’s actions are just because God is just. This is not a logical argument but merely an assertion. > [@](#): > > You are proposing that God only create “good” people. Not only do we not know for 100% certainty what is good in God’s eyes Why would our perception of good be any different from God’s? If we can’t tell what’s good then how can we choose it? > [@](#): > > this would also mean that we probably would not have been born. I can’t speak for you but I love my life. I think we would have both still been born, but so what if we hadn’t been? You’re acting like non-existence is something that can be experienced, It can’t be. If we are never created then there ISN’T any “we.” > [@](#): > > So let me get this straight. You _assumed_ that this is my perception? I said that it SEEMED to me like you had a certain perception. Was I wrong? Yoiu said that God can’t choose not to create evil people because “he values all human beings.” What did you mean by that? > [@](#): > > You act like if I dont have all the answers to every question then my viewpoint is wrong. This is a fallacy. I’m just pointing out some logical problems with Christian doctrine. I’m not the first to make these observations. I’m just telling you what they are and asking if you can resolve them. You can’t. Don’t worry about it. People have been trying to resolve them for centuries. They’re not easy questions and the greatest Christian theologians in history have taken them seriously but have not been able to truly resolve them. I wouldn’t expect you to be the first. > [@](#): > > I never said he couldnt do it without a human sacrifice. Actually, yes you did. From post #107 of this thread: > [@Trust](#): > > If you thought about it, you would realize that the only possible way for God to be just AND be a good God, would be for Christ to give himself. So is a human sacrifice necessary or isn’t it? > [@](#): > > I never said it made it okay for Jefferey Dahmer. You’re quite funny my friend. You said it “took away his punishment.” What does that mean if not that it makes it ok? It at least makes it ok for him to still go to Heaven. How does a human sacrifice make it ok for Jeffrey Dahmer to kill and eat people and still go to Heaven? > [@](#): > > What are these premises? That God is omnipotent, omiscient and omnibenevolent. > [@](#): > > It is common sense. Everyone in their lifetime is going to cause some sort of suffering. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/249 "2006-02-03T02:37:28Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > There, I read it. > > Your turn. Dennett, Pinker, Fodor, or any other respected academic work on the subject of cognitive science or philosophy of mind. I’d love to learn more about Cognitive Science and I intend to take up those recommendations. However, I do not need to read about cognitive science to discuss identification of self. You have this idea of your dictionary and it’s correctness and you admittedly do not believe in God, and yet you will not accept the description of God that people who do believe in God give you, you say that their definition is not accurate as it doesn’t fit your framework and you rigidly adhere to that framework. You call the 48 Laws of Power fluff, I think that’s ego-maniacal. Just as throwing BS about some philisophical school of “Utilitarianism” which is in and of itself merely a kind of pornography, because I was using a word, the definition of which I already knew, and you decided you had to make some point about philisophical schools. I was simply referring to a sense of accepting things only if they are immediately useful. I am aware that there have been millions of smart guys out there that focused on any number of minutiae and made up a school based around them. I genuinely was trying to come to an understanding with you, I was trying to explain a perceptual framework that you have already decided is bullshit, and I was trying to explain to you what usefulness that framework has for people. I am not trying to get you to believe in my way of looking at things, only to try and relate to you part of what it means to be a theist. I get a lot out of your posts, you have educated me more on these subjects than most posters here, and I guess the reason I singled you out is because you have fewer layers of bullshit surrounding your system of beliefs, so I don’t have to listen to some nonsensical pseudo-scientific babble to get to the heart of the matter, because unlike some other atheists on this board, I am relatively confident that you actually walk the walk when it comes to such skills. The thing is you entered into a discussion about reasons for believing and disbelieving in God, so I tried to supply you with some reasons as to why one should. I am getting quite frustrated with the level of cognitive dissonance I find on these boards. As much as you all seem to like getting upset at me for my ‘redefinition’ of words, I don’t have this problem with everyone under the sun. I can relate a lot of these ideas in one or two sentences to some people. So this idea of a “Standard Dictionary” is kind of ludicrous. I’m not making an argument ad populum, I am arguing that if some people understand the words the way I am using and others do not, that perhaps the definitions for words are not quite as standard as you think. What I have termed “Semantic Drift” for the purposes of these message boards is a very very common topic in theology. Look at the Tower of Babel story, God split the world and created multiple languages whereas before people all had a shared language. I have given this a damn lot of thought, and it would be absolutely swell if I could come onto a message board that claims to be this bastion of intellectualism and actually discuss this subject. However, to my surprise I have received a very poor reception regarding this topic. It doesn’t say much for the intellectual standards on this board in my opinion. Now, the reason I am talking to you about this is because you are one of the 5% on this board who I would say actually lives up to the standard it purports for itself, and you also happen to be an atheist who dives headlong into the debates about God or No God. I admire your posts, I think you do a wonderful job, and it’s great, but I won’t accept “How you think about things and how you frame things is wrong.” as a valid argument in an intellectual discussion, especially since what I am trying to get at is that what causes these difficulties, these great divides between us as human beings is this very semantic drift that I am talking about. I think that language needs some standardization, but that standardization has no value if it eliminates large swaths of the population from it’s use. What you see as a standard dictionary, I see as inadequate to discuss some subjects. The meaning is ALWAYS more important than the words, no matter how important a standardized meaning might be. So if you are going to discuss the idea of God, then maybe you should allow those that actually believe in God to have some say in the framing of the debate semantically rather than simply dismissing their argument based upon your “standard dictionary”. Unless of course you believe that words pop from the ether with a predefined meaning and humans don’t play a part in the creation of the assigned meaning for the sounds they utter. If you don’t believe that, then perhaps you’d be willing to accept that there are whole swaths of people out there who believe as you do that you both are speaking the same language when in fact they really aren’t, or even worse, with some words they are speaking the same language but with others there is a bit of a difference in the way that they are interpreted. Both **Trust** and I have said to you that God and Universe are synonymous. The crux of my argument has been on the subjective interpretation of what is consciousness and what is not consciousness. There is an area where the objective and the subjective interplay, and that’s what interests me. If that doesn’t interest you that’s fine, I’ll recognize that I am barking up the wrong tree. You made a comment about the meme wars, and I find that concept fascinating because I have had multiple occasions in my life where I have approached people with certain concepts and they turned me away not because they didn’t think I was onto something but because they didn’t want to go into that memetic realm. So if I am talking to the wrong person about this, then I’m sorry, I’ll stop boring you. Erek ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/250 "2006-02-03T02:47:04Z")
> [@Trust](#): > > I have never once claimed that there was a completely 100 percent way to find out what the truth is. If there was, we would have shown this argument a long time ago and be done with it. There isn’t a 90% way either, or a 10% way. There is NO way. As long as God refuses to give people any way to know what the truth is, then he has no moral right to expect them to guess it. ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/251 "2006-02-03T03:29:12Z")
We exist We die Life on this planet is a statistical aberration. And, no doubt, similar aberrations exist elsewhere in the universe. That’s it. Good night. Last one to leave turn out the sun. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/252 "2006-02-03T03:36:23Z")
> [@Trust](#): > > 1. Faith is a set of principles or beliefs No, a _doctrine_ is a set of principles or belief. Faith is just belief without evidence. > [@](#): > > 1. Beliefs based on faith are impossible to prove true. (At the present time; this is referring to individual beliefs by themselves without taking into consideration whether they are contradicted later down the road) Not true, Strictly speaking, is quite conceivable that a faith-based belief can be proven true. > [@](#): > > 1. Beliefs based on faith are impossible to prove false. (At the present time; this is referring to individual beliefs by themselves without taking into consideration whether they are contradicted later down the road) Not true. Faith-based beliefs can and are often proven false. Young Earth Creationism is a faith-based belief which has been conclusively proven false yet which still persists as an active belief. > [@](#): > > 1. If you can show a contradiction in a persons beliefs, then at least one of their beliefs is invalid. Yep. > [@](#): > > 1. Just because you do not know how something could work, it must not work. \*\* This is a logical fallacy. I don’t know every single way a car works. But we know it certainly does work. Yes, This would be a fallacy, but it’s not a fallacy I have engaged in. > [@](#): > > 1. When examining a persons faith (as a whole), you must examine all of the beliefs (where beliefs are premises). You cannot pick and choose. I must examine all their beliefs in order to do what? > [@](#): > > 6 cont.) The reason you cannot pick and choose which premises (beliefs) to consider is because certain beliefs might contradict an invalid argument. At first glance it might appear as an invalid argument without knowing all of the premises but this is only because you do not take into account all of the premises. What premises am I unaware of with regard to Christian doctrine. > [@](#): > > 1. Since beliefs based on faith cannot be proven true or false, to claim that any faith (religion) is false, it requires that it be IMPOSSIBLE for their faith to be true. This is a false axiom. It is quite possible to prove that faith beliefs are true or false. It is also possible (as with Christianity) to prove that certain premises are logically incompatible either with each other or with physical evidence. > [@](#): > > 1. For someone to claim that a certain faith is impossible, you must show contradictions. That’s one way to show that a set of beliefs is false but not the only way. > [@](#): > > 1. We have established that God is not perfectly benevolent. Strictly speaking, we have only established that God cannot be omnibenevolent AND omnipotent AND omniscient. As long as evil exists, God must lack at least one of these attributes. We have not actually established which one(s) that would be, > [@](#): > > 1. Because God is not perfectly benevolent, he cannot be benevolent. \*\* This is a logical fallacy. A parent who grounds their child is benevolent. > \*\* This statement, while true, I suppose, has no bearing on this debate. I have not made an argument that God is not _capable_ of good or even that God cannot be omnibenevolent. The argument is as I stated above. Omnibenevolence is logically incompatible with the other attribute plus evil. Even a definitive conclusion that God is not perfectly good would not equate to a statement that God is evil. > [@](#): > > 1. Because God is not required to do anything, he cannot do anything. \*\* This is a logical fallacy. Simply because God is not required to do anything does not mean that He is incapable of doing anything. > \*\* This is absolutely not anything I’ve stated. What I’ve tried to say is that an omnipotent God cannot be required to cause or allow EVIL. Therefore, if an omnipotent God chooses to allow evil to exist anyway, then that God cannot be omnibenevolent. > [@](#): > > 1. If there is one explanation for how something could work, it proves that it is not impossible for it to work. The free will problem (to which you are no doubt referring) is not a problem of explaining a mechanism but something which is _conceptually_ incoherent. > [@](#): > > 1. Your set of beliefs or reasons have no bearing on whether something is logically valid or invalid. That’s for sure. > [@](#): > > 1. Emotions have no bearing on whether something is logically valid or invalid. Ditto. > [@](#): > > 1. It is possible for you to be wrong. Not in this thread. > [@](#): > > 1. It is possible for me to be wrong. \*\* Hold that thought. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/253 "2006-02-03T05:30:30Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Yeah, it changes to “no big deal”, at least for you. You _do_ constantly claim this life is trivial, in this thread and others. It seems to be the central tenet of your religion. _That_ is the “perspective change”. Nifty how you just ignored your mistake. That’s saves time. I’ll take a stab at claifying so you won’t have to misrepresent the tenets of my belief {I have no religion} Life is precious every moment. Unlike you I happen to believe those moments extend beyond this physical life in both directions. That doesn’t means I value any moment any less. Each person is an exstention of myself and a much a child of God as I am, therefore their suffering is my own and that’s how I should treat it. This physical body is fleeting {a fact whether you are a believer or not} There are things we should place above the physical. {This is held in philosophies as well as spiritual beliefs} It’s a simple concept that you can disagree with but it does _not_ devalue life or trivialize suffering in any way. If I suffer all of year 30 out of an 80 year life that doesn’t mean that year is trivial but when you compare it to 79 years of no suffering it doesn’t seem as bad. When that year is gone I wouldn’t dwell on it and think of myself as a victim of cruel fate. > [@](#): > > Not if the different light is that “this life is just an eyeblick; the suffering in this life doesn’t matter.” In the face of eternity this life is an eyeblink. That’s undeniable. I never said suffering didn’t matter in any way that indicated we should not help others who are in need. In fact I don’t believe I said it didn’t matter at all. I said it was less severe in comparison. > [@](#): > > You compared real suffering to imaginary suffering, in an attempt to say real suffering doesn’t matter, in that “different perspective” of yours. Then that makes it an analogy you don’t like or agree with. That does not make it a false analogy. Here’s another mistake you can just avoid. > [@](#): > > It’s simplistic becaue it’s a simple situation. If God created the universe, and is omnipotent, then all it’s flaws are his fault, _and_ it’s his fault nothing is/can be done about it by us. After all, it’s his fault we’re so flawed and limited; if we do something bad or stupid, it’s because of his shoddy workmanship. And if we do something great does God get the credit? I’m not going to fire up the free will arguement. I understand your arguement. I don’t agree. > [@](#): > > The fault of the person who forced the “gift” on them, forced them to use it, gave them no users manual, and gave him a lobotomy so he couldn’t figure it out on his own. Besides,\*\* being human in this world is hardly a “precous gift”; for most people throughout history, it’s been nothing but misery and degradation. Or worse.\*\* Here it is ladies and gentlemen. The main tenet of **Der Trihs** ’ religion and yet somehow I am the twisted one. ---
**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:** [February 3, 2006, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/254 "2006-02-03T06:42:45Z")
I was waiting to see if Dio responded to this. Since he didn’t I just have to quote it. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > The above is not an opinion but a factual observation. If you wish to dispute my assertion that we have no way to know that Christianity is true, please point out the evidence and shut me up. > [@Trust](#): > > Your opinion is that simply because there is no factual evidence, that it implies that it is impossible for something to be true. This is a logical fallacy. Please not that Dio clearly said that there was no way to know if Christianity were true, and **Trust** immediately converted this to a supposed claim that he said if there was no evidence, it was impossible for Christianity to be true. And he quotes the evidence that his statement is false right above the statement! **Trust** , you do realize that these statements don’t say the same thing, don’t you? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/255 "2006-02-03T06:52:32Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I was waiting to see if Dio responded to this. Since he didn’t I just have to quote it. > > Please not that Dio clearly said that there was no way to know if Christianity were true, and **Trust** immediately converted this to a supposed claim that he said if there was no evidence, it was impossible for Christianity to be true. > > And he quotes the evidence that his statement is false right above the statement! > **Trust** , you do realize that these statements don’t say the same thing, don’t you? Thanks for the catch on that. I actually did mean to respond to that exactly the same way that you did but I guess I missed it (I had a chaotic night with my kids tonight. I had to type my repsonses piecemeal over several hours). Anyway, quite right, I did not say that lack of evidence means that something cannot be true, only that it cannot be _known_ to be true which is quite a different statement. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 10:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/256 "2006-02-03T10:40:00Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I am not trying to get you to believe in my way of looking at things, only to try and relate to you part of what it means to be a theist. Well, your mission was accomplished years ago when [I was one myself](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=2826106). > [@](#): > > I tried to supply you with some reasons as to why one should. And I responded by telling you why I find those “reasons” highly unconvincing. > [@](#): > > So this idea of a “Standard Dictionary” is kind of ludicrous. Then I suggest you take up your grievance with the good people at Merriam-Webster or the Oxford University Press. > [@](#): > > Look at the Tower of Babel story, God split the world and created multiple languages whereas before people all had a shared language. The story is a _myth_, you realise? Or are you talking about the highly specualtive [Proto-World Language](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-World_language) hypothesis, or something? > [@](#): > > However, to my surprise I have received a very poor reception regarding this topic. What language would you like to speak in, exactly? I could get by in French and know basic German and a little Welsh and Korean, but SDMB rules dictate that we must post only in standard English, and **mswas** -ese arguably skirts perilously close to breaking them. > [@](#): > > maybe you should allow those that actually believe in God to have some say in the framing of the debate semantically rather than simply dismissing their argument based upon your “standard dictionary”. Go ahead, say what you like, and I’ll read it. If I don’t think it has any substance (and I’d be delighted if it _did_), should I tell you so, or _pretend_ it did, or just ignore it? > [@](#): > > Both **Trust** and I have said to you that God and Universe are synonymous. And I say this in response: **That is absurd**. It is absurd to say that God is characterised by a background of microwave radiation. It is absurd to say that God underwent a period of chaotic inflation 13.7 billion years ago when gravity was repulsive. It is absurd to say that [this](http://www.anzwers.org/free/universe/universe.html) is a photograph of God. In fact, I’ve an idea: I’m going to **redefine** the phrase “God and the Universe are synonmous” **as** “absurd” - how’s that? Are you going to close your mind and _dismiss_ this slight “semantic drift” in the same way you accuse me of? Why not let _me_ frame the debate semantically in _this_ way? > [@](#): > > I have approached people with certain concepts and they turned me away not because they didn’t think I was onto something but because they didn’t want to go into that memetic realm. You’ll notice I’m _still here_ in that realm, debating you when most others would have given up by now. And it is for our _audience_ to decide which of us two is being more convincing here. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/257 "2006-02-03T12:39:04Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Strictly speaking, we have only established that God cannot be omnibenevolent AND omnipotent AND omniscient. As long as evil exists, God must lack at least one of these attributes. We have not actually established which one(s) that would be, > > This is absolutely not anything I’ve stated. What I’ve tried to say is that an omnipotent God cannot be required to cause or allow EVIL. Therefore, if an omnipotent God chooses to allow evil to exist anyway, then that God cannot be omnibenevolent. > > The free will problem (to which you are no doubt referring) is not a problem of explaining a mechanism but something which is _conceptually_ incoherent. Maybe I’m dense or just stubborn but I still fail to see how the first statement is established. My questions are; If everything in this world is fleeting including the percieved evil, how does that affect your premise? If we as spiritual beings, chose to experience percieved duality, which exists as a temporay perception only, how does that affect your premise? Is your premise dependent on accepting that free will is an illusion? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/258 "2006-02-03T12:49:05Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > There isn’t a 90% way either, or a 10% way. There is NO way. As long as God refuses to give people any way to know what the truth is, then he has no moral right to expect them to guess it. Does this giving have to be instantaneous or can it be a process that we percieve as linear time? ---
**Author:** ![Trust](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b38774/32.png) [@Trust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trust)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/259 "2006-02-03T14:26:30Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Not true, Strictly speaking, is quite conceivable that a faith-based belief can be proven true. Only if some sort of evidence comes along that proves that it is true, sure. What we are talking about here is faith that we have no way of proving or disproving. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Not true. Faith-based beliefs can and are often proven false. Young Earth Creationism is a faith-based belief which has been conclusively proven false yet which still persists as an active belief. I am not disagreeing with this particular point as I have already pointed this out. Can we agree that for our discussion, you cannot prove the premises we are arguing about one way or the other. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I must examine all their beliefs in order to do what? To see whether something is contradictory. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > What premises am I unaware of with regard to Christian doctrine. I cannot read your mind. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > This is a false axiom. It is quite possible to prove that faith beliefs are true or false. It is also possible (as with Christianity) to prove that certain premises are logically incompatible either with each other or with physical evidence. Our entire discussion focuses on points that we cannot prove one way or the other. Besides, this is most likely going to end up being untrue because the person claiming for example that the earth is 6000 years old is just going to come up with the premise that the universes laws are not always withheld by God. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > That’s one way to show that a set of beliefs is false but not the only way. In terms of this discussion it is the only way since we are arguing about something neither of us can prove. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Strictly speaking, we have only established that God cannot be omnibenevolent AND omnipotent AND omniscient. As long as evil exists, God must lack at least one of these attributes. We have not actually established which one(s) that would be, I will not disagree with this. According to my set of beliefs, it would be omnibenevolent. I would argue that the only singularity that does not allow God to be omnibenevolent is because he made us. We have no other reasons to believe that God uses evil otherwise. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > This statement, while true, I suppose, has no bearing on this debate. I have not made an argument that God is not _capable_ of good or even that God cannot be omnibenevolent. The argument is as I stated above. Omnibenevolence is logically incompatible with the other attribute plus evil. Even a definitive conclusion that God is not perfectly good would not equate to a statement that God is evil. Apparently this is a point that we have differing viewpoints on. Where are you finding that Christianity says that God is omnibenevolent? I have never heard anyone say that God is omnibenevolent. Benevolent sure, but not omnibenevolent. Now this of coarse does not mean that Christianity does say this. I just simply have not heard this. If you do quote something such as the bible, before you try to make a big long argument out of it, can we agree on the fact that you need to take things within context. For example, when Christ says to be perfect like your father, it does not necessarily mean being literally perfect. While I will certainly not dismiss the fact that it could be taken literally, it does not guarentee that it should be taken literally. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > This is absolutely not anything I’ve stated. What I’ve tried to say is that an omnipotent God cannot be required to cause or allow EVIL. Therefore, if an omnipotent God chooses to allow evil to exist anyway, then that God cannot be omnibenevolent. The first statement is untrue in our case because God is not “required” to cause or allow evil. He could choose to do so. The second statement I would agree with but you should also state that God is omniscient. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > The free will problem (to which you are no doubt referring) is not a problem of explaining a mechanism but something which is _conceptually_ incoherent. The point is that if are concept does not agree, you can simply “rely on God” to add another premise we are unaware of. There is always a way to make it true. Do you disagree on this? > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Not in this thread. You just proved your ignorance. How does your mindset of being right or wrong differ from a religious extremist? I am being serious. It does not. You do not consider that you are wrong. So how in the world are you going to admit that you are wrong if you’re wrong? After reading all of your answers to these questions I can tell that we do not disagree on much. The only point that we disagree on is that you mistake peoples beliefs as being contradictory. While at first glance it may seem that way, people simply rely on God to work out the details. For instance, when someone says that they believe the earth is 6000 years old. They don’t simply believe this and it’s the end of the story. They believe that we are unaware of some premise that shows that the universal laws can not be followed (this is one explanation that someone could give that would make the argument still logical). Now, if you relate this to every premise based on faith, you will realize that everything can still work out. Whether you can think of a way that it can work out is irrelevant. It is at least possible. You claim that Christianity is impossible. I claim that anything is possible with faith because you can change the premises by relying on God. There is no way to prove this (at least until you find out millions of unanswered questions we have). Therefore, claiming that something is impossible is completely ignorant. ---
**Author:** ![Trust](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b38774/32.png) [@Trust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trust)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/260 "2006-02-03T14:32:13Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I was waiting to see if Dio responded to this. Since he didn’t I just have to quote it. > > Please not that Dio clearly said that there was no way to know if Christianity were true, and **Trust** immediately converted this to a supposed claim that he said if there was no evidence, it was impossible for Christianity to be true. > > And he quotes the evidence that his statement is false right above the statement! > **Trust** , you do realize that these statements don’t say the same thing, don’t you? Dio already did claim that Christianity is impossible to be true. He accused Christianity of being logically impossible. Since the premises we are discussing in regards to faith cannot currently be proven true or false, he is claiming that is it impossible for Christianity to be true. Most of his entire argument has been that if you cannot prove something is true, it is impossible. This is complete ignorance. If you want to take everything I say in your own context why bother to make a post about it? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964.md?page=14)