"There is no God" is an opinion, not a fact.

[kung_fu_lola]

@gobear

Explain the appendix.

We used to need it, now we don’t. What - the fact that there are laws of nature is now evidence that God doesn’t exist? I’m not into the whole " Watchmaker" thing myself, but to conflate that theory into “Well if God is behind it, everything has to be perfect”, is overly simplistic, even for you.

The benefit of “dissolving” or otherwise getting rid of our appendix is not great enough to justify the energy required to make it happen. That’s the way it works in nature - energy is not expended unnessecarily. Biology is efficient.

I used to have a lot of respect for you, but lately I find your arguments against God too facile and childish. Get a new tune, your old karaoke is no longer fresh.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@robertliguori

I’d disagree with this statement. Diogenes, what would be the logical reaction upon meeting Someone (a person, a force, a whatever) that convinced you that it was, in fact, God? Either you’d be crazy (a rather unsatisfying hypothesis, as if it’s true, you can’t prove it), mistaken (same thing; if you can’t evaluate this conclusion correctly, you have no reason to think you can evaluate any conclusion) or God would actually exist. Now, you couldn’t prove the existence of God with this experience, telepathy currently being unreliable, but for as for yourself, you would still be sure that God existed, and for yourself, this would be a perfectly rational conclusion.

So, now what? Knowing this, you aren’t going to be swayed by logical proofs against the existence of God, any more than a person with a few pennies will be convinced that two plus two is five.

Ordinarily I’d be proud of this burst of intuitive thinking. However, as Polycarp flat-out stated something similar earlier, I claim no credit. So, Diogenes, given an experience described above, and positing that you’ve checked your pipe after the experience and found nothing unexpected, what is the logical conclusion?

If I were to experience anything which could not be repeated or observed by others. If I could not use empirical method to prove that anything “supernatural” had happened, I would assume that I was hallucinating and hie myself to a psychiatrist. There is no purely personal or subjective experience which I would accept as evidence. The kind of experiences which people cite as being personally convincing (visionary experiences, NDE’s, etc.) can readily be explained physiologically. There is a chemical called DMT-5-Meo which is produced naturally in the brain. When this chemical is introduced artifically, mirabile dictu, people have the identical “religious” experiences and those experiences always seem objectively real.

[robertliguori]

@Diogenes the Cynic

If I were to experience anything which could not be repeated or observed by others. If I could not use empirical method to prove that anything “supernatural” had happened, I would assume that I was hallucinating and hie myself to a psychiatrist.

I’d meant for that to be covered under checking your pipe. But, let’s play along. You’ve gotten checked out. Upon discovering that God’s statements to you were less “Kill people” and more "I exist. ", checks you out with a clean bill of health, and a firm request to see him again if the experience repeats itself. Assuming it doesn’t, what then?

@Diogenes the Cynic

There is no purely personal or subjective experience which I would accept as evidence. The kind of experiences which people cite as being personally convincing (visionary experiences, NDE’s, etc.) can readily be explained physiologically. There is a chemical called DMT-5-Meo which is produced naturally in the brain. When this chemical is introduced artifically, mirabile dictu, people have the identical “religious” experiences and those experiences always seem objectively real.

And? You are positing that deposits of DMT-5-Meo quantum-tunnel into people’s heads, and that is what causes theophanies? What does a chemical that could cause people to believe something have to do with said thing’s veracity? I’m not claiming that God is the only explanation for mentioned experiences. Likewise, I concede that I might be floating in a sensory deprivation tank, hallucinating all of this in a drug-addled haze. Positing that a chemical is screwing with your reasoning capacity is not an intellectually rigorus way out of my argument.

Again, if you have an experience in which you percieve God, there is no logical reason not to believe. The Problem of Evil and similar things become questions of why He is the way He is, and not if He is.

[Marley23]

@Tracy Lord

Sorry, should have clarified: doesn’t always play on that squash court.

Right, that’s rather the point. If you will, god plays squash on that court until somebody else decides to play.

[Othersider]

@Marley23

Right, that’s rather the point. If you will, god plays squash on that court until somebody else decides to play.

Scene of rabbis relaxing in a sauna
But, what if you want to play squash with God?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@robertliguori

I’d meant for that to be covered under checking your pipe. But, let’s play along. You’ve gotten checked out. Upon discovering that God’s statements to you were less “Kill people” and more "I exist. ", checks you out with a clean bill of health, and a firm request to see him again if the experience repeats itself. Assuming it doesn’t, what then?

I would assume that th shrink had missed something. A natural DMT release would not necessarily leave any lasting physiological marks and would not in itself be any sort of mental illness.

And? You are positing that deposits of DMT-5-Meo quantum-tunnel into people’s heads, and that is what causes theophanies?

DMT is produced naturally in the brain and is released at times of intense stress. It’s almost certainly what causes NDE’s. It doesn’t “tunnel into” the brain, it’s already in there.

What does a chemical that could cause people to believe something have to do with said thing’s veracity? I’m not claiming that God is the only explanation for mentioned experiences. Likewise, I concede that I might be floating in a sensory deprivation tank, hallucinating all of this in a drug-addled haze. Positing that a chemical is screwing with your reasoning capacity is not an intellectually rigorus way out of my argument.

If it is known that a naturally occurring chemical in the brain can cause hallucinations then why should any other possibility besides hallucination be given any consideration?

Again, if you have an experience in which you percieve God, there is no logical reason not to believe.

On the contrary. Iwould not consider my personal. subejective experiences to be evidence of anything other than interesting brain chemistry.

[Tracy_Lord]

It seems then, DtC, that you’d be going out of your way to explain away the evidence. Occam’s Razor, and all that.

Let’s put it this way: assuming for the purposes of discussion that there is a God, what would it take for you to believe in them?

[Voyager]

@Lilairen

If someone doesn’t have a tenet of universalism or a set form (or in the case of the Abrahamic religions as I understand them, a denial of the possibility of representative form) for the divine in their beliefs, this point is not likely to be relevant to them.

I wasn’t particularly thinking about form. Far more important is what the God or gods command their worshippers to do, and their account of how the world works. Yes, the earliest gods were purely tribal, and their adherents (like Alexander the Great) had no problem accepting that other people had other, equally valid, gods - which led to a lot more tolerance than we see today. In a sense the lack of proseltyzing in Judaism might be a remnant of this . But even if there are lots of gods, their creation stories should agree.

[joyfool]

For once in my life, I refuse to give up and go quietly away, just because I’m a pest who doesn’t speak where anyone can understand me. I’ll quit that Pig Latin soon. I swear.

Simplified and succint as I can…

1.) Presentation is important if you want anyone to hear you and consider a different position. Banging one’s head against the wall never accomplishes anything but gaining a migrain.

2.) Not everyone is deserving of derision. Only the ilk of types like Phelps. Others, especially those that are trying, deserve even better than they put forth. Because sometimes, they do get the whole Golden Rule thing and then follow by example.

3.) Generalization doesn’t ever do anyone any good, lest it be turned back in your direction, for just one reason. Another is because it’s never deserved. The biggest red neck may read Proust. A graduate from Harvard could be a raging homophobe. Lumping us all in together is very insulting to anyone who even tangentially doesn’t fit the mold. I wouldn’t want them dismissing my arguements entirely due to a fallacy in judgment. Which isn’t mine anyhow.

4.) Thoughts and opinions sometime speak louder than words. Isn’t that the attitude we’ve lambasted here before? That you’re close to just as reprehensible if you condone vile behavior despite not having the actions to back it up? I’ve never had an abortion, but I’d damn well back up the right-to-life position as legitimate and show it the common courteousy it deserves. Regardless of my own stance or the rhetoric of opponents.

5.) Why is disabusing someone of a notion, a “delusion” to cop from a previous quote, so important? If the fact that I like Aerosmith isn’t an issue to you, be polite. If I rally for nothing but All Aerosmith, All The Time on every radio station imaginable, than fight me tooth and nail on it (although I don’t understand what could conceivably be a problem with that) because it effects that which is near and dear. Otherwise, be humanistic in your approaches.

Again, all IMHO. But I’d be thrilled, nay over-joyed, if a Doper would like to step up to the plate and grant me some of their thoughts. Because see, you have no idea how many drafts I’ve gone through just to get this down to a reasonable (for faithfool, that is) size. Please, pass recognition where it’s due this way. Or skim and just pretend to give it quasi-serious consideration.

I’m stepping away from the keyboard now and tying my hands. I’m not even going to spell check in the hopes that I won’t… keep… writing.

Argh!

[Voyager]

@Othersider

Oh, please. Get off your high horse. You sit there pontificating at us, and then you say you “humbly” await my explanation?

What a crock of shit. :rolleyes:

Rather I should call you names? I can do that, but you asked for a rational explanation, and I gave you one. Sorry you aren’t smart enough to respond to it. You want to believe in your mythical deity, fine - but if you want laws passed enforcing its words, you had better give some solid evidence it exists.

Still waiting for your rational explanation.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Tracy Lord

It seems then, DtC, that you’d be going out of your way to explain away the evidence. Occam’s Razor, and all that.

Let’s put it this way: assuming for the purposes of discussion that there is a God, what would it take for you to believe in them?

Let’s see the bastard. Not just me, everybody. Let him go on TV and perform real miracles that can be observed by everybody and repeated and confirmed as real. Let’s see a little sun-stopping action or a brand new planet in the sky made to my specifications. Let’s see him bring somebody back from the dead, and I don’t mean like from an operating table, I mean like Abraham Lincoln.

If he can do some of that stuff (and everyone else can see it, not just me), then i might believe in him but he’d have some pretty tall explaining to do.

[Loopydude]

@Tracy Lord

It seems then, DtC, that you’d be going out of your way to explain away the evidence. Occam’s Razor, and all that.

Let’s put it this way: assuming for the purposes of discussion that there is a God, what would it take for you to believe in them?

He’s not “explaining away”; he’s pointing out that there are, in fact, mundane candidates that provide a plausible explanation for phenomena that some interpret as spiritual experiences. As there are endogenous agents capable of inducing altered states of consciousness that in every subjective sense mimic a spiritual experience, is it not a more judicious use of Occam’s razor, then, to pick this simple explanation over any other?

Speaking for myself, I would find independently-verifiable, bona fide miracles to be quite convincing (though it might take some doing to prove super-intelligent aliens were not messing with humanity somehow). Raise some certifiably dead folks from the grave, and have everyone, be they believers or not, see it, record it, examine it, etc. Do something absolutely physically impossible, like take a bunch of physicists on a tour of the insides of a black hole and get them all home safe and sound. That might convince myself, as well as most other folks, that God is the real supernatural deal.

[Othersider]

@Voyager

Rather I should call you names?

If you’d like. I was the runner-up in the annual dozens competition at my middle school, so you better bring it.

@Voyager

I can do that, but you asked for a rational explanation, and I gave you one.

I asked you for an apple and you gave me an orange. I didn’t like yours anymore than you did mine.

@Voyager

Sorry you aren’t smart enough to respond to it.

Oh, so now you want to bring intelligence into it? Very well. I graduated summa cum laude from Harvard and Oxford with a PhD, a BBA, an ATV, and an MP3, and I did it in only 4 years. I’m a licensed CPA, a mediator with the Chicago PD, and a gongist for the Rolling Stones. What sort of credentials do you have, sir?

@Voyager

You want to believe in your mythical deity, fine - but if you want laws passed enforcing its words, you had better give some solid evidence it exists.

Ooh, I like how you played off your opinion that God is “mythical” by using it as an adjective, implying that anything assumed by the truth value of your phrase is a true fact. Very nice.

Seriously though, I did not say I believe in God. I’m not certain if I do (but that’s an issue of semantics, and a horse of a different color). I think I have said though, I thought it was more likely than not that our world was a purposeful work by an intelligent creator. In the course of this thread, we went on to establish that it was my opinion, my interpretation of evidence, and that it can’t be proven right or wrong.

Of course, this isn’t the topic of the thread, it’s a tangent - so I’m not sure why we keep dwelling on this issue.

@Voyager

Still waiting for your rational explanation.

I gave my opinion earlier. Some people agreed it was possible, some disagreed, but I think we all agreed it was just that - my opinion. Everyone is entitled to have an opinion, an individual interpretation of the available evidence, and make the conclusion they see most reasonable based on it.

[Voyager]

@lel

(Who disagreed that the earth was flat 1000 years ago? It’s not flat.)

In the spirit of fighting ignorance, just about every educated person knew the earth was round 1,000 years ago. There were a few monks, who were pretty much laughed at by everyone, who claimed it was flat. They also knew more or less how big it was. (The Greeks discovered that.) They doubted Columbus because he claimed the earth was smaller than accepted knowledge - and he was wrong.

But damn lucky.

Isn’t it interesting how myths about the past get so widely accepted? Makes you think about religion, doesn’t it.

[Voyager]

@Diogenes the Cynic

An opinion that the moon is made of camembert is not evidence that the moon is made of camambert. Opinions mean nothing. They are not evidence because they do not make anything more or less likely to be true. They do not have probative value. They do not contain any information.

I disagree. Othersider’s opinions give lots of evidence about his reasoning ability, for instance. But about the state of reality - not so much.

[Loopydude]

Jeez, numerous posts snuck in there. Sorry, DtC.

[Othersider]

@faithfool

Again, all IMHO. But I’d be thrilled, nay over-joyed, if a Doper would like to step up to the plate and grant me some of their thoughts. Because see, you have no idea how many drafts I’ve gone through just to get this down to a reasonable (for faithfool, that is) size. Please, pass recognition where it’s due this way. Or skim and just pretend to give it quasi-serious consideration.

Good jorb.

Strangely enough, when you read something like that from someone with whom you agree, it’s hard to fathom that others don’t agree with you. But, I guess anything is possible.

[joyfool]

This bears repeating here. From another thread in a different fora that I’m apparently a non-participant in too…

Y’all don’t mind me. I love my ability to be invisible. And it’s a rather high ranking status, too. Aren’t you all jealous?

And no, I don’t mean that snarkily, just that it’s frustrating to bust your ass to see both sides, then pose questions and no one answer at all. I even tried again. I know it’s still not good enough, but I’ll make deviled eggs for anyone brave enough (besides sweet Tracy) to give it a shot.

What if I beg too?

[joyfool]

Well damn, Othersider, that was quick.

How many would you like? And should I get on my knees now?

[Voyager]

@Othersider

I asked you for an apple and you gave me an orange. I didn’t like yours anymore than you did mine.

It is not a matter of me liking yours - it is just that yours is the 200 year old Blind Watchmaker argument, which has been refuted nine ways from Sunday. Thomas Paine was a deist, and believed in god because he thought the structure of the solar system was impossible to achieve without a god. Now we know that gravity does fine, and we’re seeing star systems in the process of creation. So what is impossible without a god? Remember, the issue is not the improbability of man or our world, but the improbability of any kind of life. Any outcome is incredibly improbable, including that any of us in particular came to be.

What sort of credentials do you have, sir?

Actually, quite a few, but they are irrelevant. Around here the ability to conduct an argument is much more important than credentials.

[quote
Seriously though, I did not say I believe in God. I’m not certain if I do (but that’s an issue of semantics, and a horse of a different color). I think I have said though, I thought it was more likely than not that our world was a purposeful work by an intelligent creator. In the course of this thread, we went on to establish that it was my opinion, my interpretation of evidence, and that it can’t be proven right or wrong.
[/QUOTE]

If you were a scientist, you would not talk in terms of proof. (Both sides have made this error.) But you are quite wrong about it all being opinion. What is the predictive power of an intelligent creator? We should be able to see his hand, and there should be some mechanisms that can’t be explained by evolution or physics, etc. If we found evidence of the creation, that would be good evidence for the creator. But what we see is all natural. We can’t rule out a deistic god, who threw everything up in the air and never interfered, but that is functionally equivalent to no god at all.

We can’t prove that no god exists, but we can be sure that the god of the inerrant Bible doesn’t, because there are all these “facts” in it that go against solid evidence. So, how would you propose to differentiate between a godless world and a godful world?