Rockism 101 discussion
religion/spirituality/philosophy
>
Logical evidence of the Existence of God...
Before I get to the scientific evidence in support of it I have to start with the basic logical eveidence.The logical evidence starts off with the realization that we humans here on Earth have an unbelievably limited perception of our universe.
From this limited perception - no matter how far we think our science and phsyics has advanced - it is nearly impossible to make any definitive claims as to how the universe works. BUT there are things we can say with a fair amount of certainty.
One thing that seems 'highly likely' is that if something exists then most likely it was created. Science tells us that our universe has not always existed. Science tells us that it was created from the Big Bang. We dont know how it was created, but we do know that it was created.
That unknown, that "How" it was created - whether it was a force, some mechanical attractions, some energy, etc - is what I am calling god (lower case g). And this is pretty much in line with the common defintion of god: that which created our universe.
Now comes the question of whether that Unknown, that force, entity, magnetic attraction, or whatever it was, had consciousness or not.
Here is what we can say about that.
1~Everything that exists in our universe derives from the Big Bang.
2~Consciousness is something that exists in our universe.
3~Therefore consciousness derives from the Big Bang as well.
In otherwords whatever force, entity, etc that created the Big Bang had the ability to create consciousness as well.
So if this force had all the components neccesary to create consciousness, then it is at least POSSIBLE that this entity had consciousness itself.
And that it is POSSIBLE is all I can claim.
Which may not sound like I am saying much BUT, what that does is reveal the basic flaw in Atheism. Because Atheism says it is unequivocally NOT possible.
Why would anyone from the other thread you started on this very idea matriculate over here to have the discussion start all over again. This is exactly what you got accused of over there in Message 98, where Hazel astutely pointed out: "Every question you asked in that final paragraph has already been answered in this thread, you asked, people provided answers, it doesn't conform to what you want, so you ask again. Thats the only explanation I can see for you to ask again..." (see http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...)
You can call anything "god" and have logical evidence for its existence. Words have meanings. The word "god" carries certain connotations with it: personal nature (that is, consciousness, and directive of activity), awareness, some level of involvement with life, even if only in the deistic sense. Yes, we could assign the label of "god" to whatever force ignited the Big Bang, or to the idea of some quantum-entanglement collective conscience between all living things, or to my tennis shoes. But such a label will really only have meaning to you; you'll have a devil of a time getting others to agree with you.Language is a bugaboo.
And the only reason why I matriculated on over here to point this out to you is because I didn't say it in the first thread. I work on a radio show where we encourage religious people to ask us questions about atheism, and then we answer those questions. This one comes up literally every week -- this idea of "God exists because to me, 'god' means X," where X = some concept that has significance only to that individual and not to anybody else, especially not in the context of the word "god." If you haven't proved your point to anybody but yourself, then you haven't proved your point at all.
Well gee Libbie, if that is your glass-half empty outlook, then let me ask, "How can you prove anything to anyone?" I mean we have to come to some point where a little commonality is used, or else there is no point in talking, asking questions, or doing anything else, right?James, you add just as little to this thread as you did the other. Keep up the good work!
@James, what do you think of the Unibomber?
Ed, if you are the one making the assertion (that "god" can be defined as "the force that incited the Big Bang," for example) then you are the one who must prove it, not me. I'll offer my own proofs for my assertions when I make them. We have commonality; it's called language. Clarity of communication is about all we have to ensure any kind of commonality. Redefining words willy-nilly to suit your own existential insecurities doesn't do anything to preserve commonality.
Don't assume my glass is half empty. Since giving up on that silly god stuff, my glass has been brimming over.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Which may not sound like I am saying much BUT, what that does is reveal the basic flaw in Atheism. Because Atheism says it is unequivocally NOT possible. "The only flaw is in your flawed definition of Atheism. Atheism does not say it is unequivocally not possible, atheism says that the possibility is so remote that there is no point pursuing the model, or any of its many competitors.
Atheism is not a belief structure, it is a lack of a belief structure.
The basic argument (as I pointed out on the other thread) is also fundamentally flawed for many reasons. For a start the only definition of consciousness we have is essentially "an aware, thinking being" but the only way we can measure this awareness is in context to ourselves, therefore your assumed entity needs to somehow be close enough to our worldview to register as conscious.
Another flaw is the simple fact that consciousness (as best as we can define it) has only been observed in extremely complex systems of particles, therefore these systems of particles need to be in place before it can then decide to create said particles.
Another flaw is the fact time and space start simultaneously (because they are both parts of each other) so the universe cannot be "created" by something "before" it as the concept of "before time began is illogical".
Another flaw is the perpetual theistic flaw of taking the claim that everything needs a creator, then who created the creator. Claiming that the creator somehow created himself is a circular argument and therefore not valid.
Another flaw is the argument is neo-Platonism which assumes that everything that exists needs a "template" that it is a reflection of. This means that if there are cars on the earth then their must have been a "perfect car" at creation for cars to thus exist. Therefore your argument asserts that because we have cars now there always should have been cars.
In fact if you were to simplify the argument, because it equivocates a hypothetical conscious entity at the start of the universe to 'god' the argument is;
"Assuming god is possible, god is possible."
That's funny CJ, did you write that or is that a quote from Monty Python?Libbie, maybe you can let my glass catch some of the overflow from your glass then - because mines getting near empty.
;-)
I'm curious though - what word or words are you claiming I am trying to redefine? And if I am trying to redifine these words, then why is that wrong?
Isn't our language in a constant state of change - continually evolving as we do?
C.J. wrote: "I think Atheism says there is SOME evidence that suggests a Creator."No evidence that I'm aware of and a complete lack of evidence that anything undergoes "creation".
All atheism does is not assume that there exists a "person" with supernatural powers who created everything. Accept theories and models where there is evidence, but placing belief before rationality is (by definition) irrational.
Ed, I appreciate that you're indicating that I haven't added to this discussion here but rather reject the claim on the other thread. That was a bit beneath you, I think. The reason I haven't contributed here is because the "discussion" has been over for about a hundred comments there, but you just keep raising the same questions as if they haven't been answered. In other words, this has wandered into Troll Territory.
Do not fear the emptying of your glass. Once you realize how little the god business, in any of its desperate permutations, brings to human life, you realize the full worth and beauty of life as it is now, raw and natural and brief and delicate. Literally the moment I admitted to myself that I no longer believed in god, the world began to throb with this incredible, poignant, impermanent vitality, and it hasn't stopped since.In my experience with doing our radio show and talking to an awful lot of people who are still on the spectrum of belief, whether they are still deeply religious or, like you, desperately clawing for some remaining toe-hold on the "spiritual," what these people are clinging to is comfort in the face of the natural fear of death. To a lesser degree, and kind of related, they have a fear of whether human beings can be moral without religious principles to guide them.
To the morality fear, I point out that most people are already more moral than their ancient holy books are (do you think slavery is okay? Would you beat your child to death for disobeying you? No? Congratulations; you're a damn sight better a person than Yahweh.) So clearly morality derives from something outside of religion -- something native to humanity, and irrespective of religious belief.
To the death fear: how terrible and awful was it before you were born? That's about what you can expect after death. Yes, the thought of leaving our place in this fantastic, beautiful, terrible, speeding-by thing we call life is sad and intimidating. And you never know when you're going to go. So instead of storing up treasures in an imagined afterlife, why not spend the time you do have -- today -- trying to make it a better place for other people, or at least trying to experience as much of it as you can before you check out?
When I was still religious, these anxieties plagued me. It was only when I came to understand what the world could look like without religion to hinder me that I lost my anxieties and began living life to its fullest, and working hard to help others do the same.
That's how you make your cup overflow.
As for the rest of your question, you are trying to redefine "god" to suit your own discomfort with the unknown. Don't play dumb on that point; it's the idea on which all your myriad of threads is predicated.
Yes, language evolves, but not because one dude on an internet site decides he doesn't like the mysteries of the universe. Language evolves relatively slowly, due to several parts of the zeitgeist acting at once. It's the kind of thing linguists spend lifetimes studying.
There is no god. Now stop worrying and go enjoy your life.
Libbie wrote: "Do not fear the emptying of your glass. Once you realize how little the god business, in any of its desperate permutations, brings to human life, you realize the full worth and beauty of life as i..."THAT was awesome! Complete agreement from this peanut gallery!
Once you realize how little the god business, in any of its desperate permutations, brings to human life, you realize the full worth and beauty of life as it is now, raw and natural and brief and delicate. Literally the moment I admitted to myself that I no longer believed in god, the world began to throb with this incredible, poignant, impermanent vitality, and it hasn't stopped since.I was just using some self-deprecating humor to lighten things up a bit when I said my glass in nearly empty Libbie...I'm actually one of the happiest people you will ever meet, which is why I disagree with your implication that the only way in which to experience a life with 'incredible, poignant, impermanent vitality' is to give up on this god notion.
For me, exploring the god notion is one (of many possible) doorways in which to explore the mysteries of the universe. And if anything, the fascinating journey that such an adventure has taken me on has only gone to enhance the 'incredible, poignant, impermanent, vitality' that pulsates through my life.
That is why I am encouraging this discussion in fact. Hopefully to share that fascinating journey with others.
:)
Ed, if you want to "explore the God notion," it has to start with a definition. What notion are you seeking to explore? This is by far the most useful contribution I've made (repeatedly, echoed by others).What is your definition for God?
Ed Wagemann wrote: "1~Everything that exists in our universe derives from the Big Bang.
2~Consciousness is something that exists in our universe.
3~Therefore consciousness derives from the Big Bang as well.
In otherwords whatever force, entity, etc that created the Big Bang had the ability to create consciousness as well.
So if this force had all the components neccesary to create consciousness, then it is at least POSSIBLE that this entity had consciousness itself.
And that it is POSSIBLE is all I can claim. "
Which means this would work too:
1~Everything that exists in our universe derives from the Big Bang.
2~"Big huge male genitalia" is something that exists in our universe.
3~Therefore "Big huge male genitalia" derives from the Big Bang as well.
In otherwords whatever force, entity, etc that created the Big Bang had the ability to create "Big huge male genitalia" as well.
So if this force had all the components neccesary to create "Big huge male genitalia", then it is at least POSSIBLE that this entity had "Big huge male genitalia" itself.
AHHHH! I see your point!
On the other nearly identical thread, the same game got pulled with "dog shit" in place of "big huge male genitalia." Hilarity ensued there too.
Ed Wagemann wrote: " which is why I disagree with your implication that the only way in which to experience a life with 'incredible, poignant, impermanent vitality' is to give up on this god notion. "The fact that I did NOT say that the only way to experience life to its fullest is to be godless is clear to everybody who will read my post. Your hyperbole is tiresome and trollish and not fooling anybody, just like everything else about you.
Here are your exact words Libbie:"Once you realize how little the god business, in any of its desperate permutations, brings to human life, you realize the full worth and beauty of life as it is now, raw and natural and brief and delicate. Literally the moment I admitted to myself that I no longer believed in god, the world began to throb with this incredible, poignant, impermanent vitality, and it hasn't stopped since."
If you want to walk that statement back, then fine. But I think it is small of you to make blind accusations at me for simply confronting YOUR hyperbole and staking my claim that one does NOT need to dismiss this god business in order to feel great joy and happiness.
You seem like a nice lady, but come on, let's be fair here.
But what about the difference between consciousness and big huge male genitals?
All the elements needed to produce consciousness derive from the big bang just as all the elements needed to produce huge male genitals derive from the big bang. I have never disputed that.
So, then "God" must exist and be very well endowed.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "All the elements needed to produce consciousness derive from the big bang just as all the elements needed to produce huge male genitals derive from the big bang. I have never disputed that."Yet the argument is predicated on the idea that one of the "products" must have been there at the "beginning" and therefore somehow responsible for it.
The people who are arguing by substitution are simply showing that the logic of the argument is deeply flawed. (Meaning 'argument' in the sense of a logical expression, not a slinging match!) :-)
Libbie,What is your radio show?
I believe in God. My belief has nothing to do with a fear of death. I would still fear death even if I did not believe in God. And it has nothing to do with a fear of immorality. In fact the best man at our wedding was, and still is, an atheist. If we had a third child, he would be the godfather.
So what would you attribute to my belief in God? Just curious...
I'd still attribute it to the fear of death with highest probability. A fear of social rejection should be prominent on the list as well, as might a fear of change.You should be afraid of immortality if you believe in God, though. Doesn't matter which side of that coin you land on, it's going to suck in a major way.
James, you assume I believe in the Biblical heaven and hell. If that turned out to be true, then I agree that either way, it would suck. Although I'd rather be bored for an eternity than burning in hell.And trust me, even believing in God, I still fear death. That's not going to change because my fear of death is a fear of the unknown, regardless of what it is. And I am more afraid of how I will die. I don't really dwell on either, but that's what it is.
As far as social rejection is concerned, I've already been there and it had nothing to do with religion or God. I don't care about social rejection. I might if it meant being burned at the stake, but that seems unlikely now.
So even though I have already been through my crisis of faith, a ten year long crisis of faith, and come out on the other side as a believer, you still think my belief is based on a fear of death?
The reason I ask is because like I said, I've already been through all the doubt and the contemplation of atheism and decided against it. I've changed in more ways than I care to list here, but I still came out a believer.
I remember reading an article about scientists studying the brain and the possibility of some people being genetically hard wired to believe in God. Even Dawkins briefly covers the possibility of an evolutionary reason, although if I remember correctly, I believe he immediately dismisses it, which is a shame because I thought that argument would have been fascinating.
Do you not think that an individual can listen to all these arguments, completely accept science and evolution and still believe in God?
Christina, I do not assume you believe in a "biblical" hell (really mostly doctrinal, but that's an aside). Immortality would be a curse no matter what happened in it.So you are afraid to die. That's the main purpose of religion, to paper over that fear, so are you absolutely sure it's not part of why you believe? I mean, I don't really care either way, since this is about you and what you choose to live with.
Yes. I still think it is highly likely that your belief in God is, in part, motivated by your fear of death. It could be that you like the social aspect or the hope or comfort (ahh, but those last two are part of the fear of death) it gives you, but maybe it's best if I just ask you why you think you believe in God and not make any assumptions about you.
We're evolutionarily hard-wired to be tribal, which often manifests as racism or other kinds of otherism, but lots of us learn to drop those impulses. Hard-wired to seek explanations and even accept bad ones on faith doesn't imply we actually have to be that way.
Your last question is interesting, but I don't have time to answer it just now. I'll get back to it in a bit.
Christina, be forewarned. Having a discussion with James is futile. He's Mr. Know-it-all who refuses to admit he's wrong at all cost! And his downfall makes it impossible to have a normal human verbal exchange. You'd be better of having a discussion with a brick wall.
I am not a scientist and based on the discussion in the other group, it sounds like you all are. So please keep that in mind. I am sure I will not explain my reasons well, so I will use the following from Politicopolis' website:Undoubtedly, Aristotle borrowed heavily from [Plato] with regards to the motion argument and this is reflected in his Metaphysics. A brief preview of Aristotle’s argument would be helpful: 1) motion exists; 2) things cannot be the cause of their own motion; 3) infinite regress is an impossibility; 4) something must have caused first motion; 5) that “something” is not caused to move by anything else; 6) motion is eternal and necessary; 7) the Unmoved Mover is eternal, necessary and must exist.
Now I don't claim to be capable of even imagining what would be before the creation of this universe. For me, it's pretty simple, 1. the universe creates itself from nothing, 2. infinite regress or 3. God. I have to go with God. And I don't claim to understand God's existence.
Religion and God are two different things. Religion is a tool, nothing more. As any tool, it can be used for good or bad. When arguments are made about how religion is responsible for this or that, I find it interesting. It's sort of like yelling at a car instead of a drunk driver when someone is killed. People commit atrocities; religion is just the tool or justification.
So do some people, or even many, use religion as comfort because they fear death? Absolutely. That's just not my reason.
Have you read A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather Than Nothing, Christina? It makes a case, resting upon modern cosmology, for why the point you label as #1 (universe creates itself from nothing) is most likely to be true. I'll also point out that your #3 (God) is not a single answer. Which God? The Creator God of deism? The God of Christianity? The God of Hinduism? Some other God that has the property of being a creator?The problem with constructions like Aristotle's there is that they automatically define the God they attempt to establish. So that argument establishes God as the "Unmoved Mover," i.e. as a First Cause for the universe. It does so literally as a post hoc method to prevent the infinite regress that would destroy the God hypothesis outright. So, is the God you believe in, then, merely this First Cause for the universe, or does it have other properties in addition to that? If it has other properties, what are they, and why did you choose to accept those? These are important questions.
In any case, then, you're claiming that the reason you believe in God is because you don't know how the universe started. This is usually called a "God of the Gaps" position, and it implicitly defines your God as the explanation for everything science can't explain yet, usually in reference only to questions of our origins or other highly anthropocentric matters, like the existence of consciousness (see Ed's original post here). The problem with that definition of God, besides being a non-explanation to fill in the gaps in our understanding of the universe is that the God of the Gaps is doomed to continually shrink in scope and importance as we answer more and more questions. Indeed, to believe Laurence Krauss (the book I referenced above), the main reason you believe in God may have already been removed from the list of gaps that God is defined to be filling.
Now, back to your earlier question about if someone can believe science and in God. Not without either suspending one belief or the other in certain regimes (i.e. some kind of partitioning of the mind) or experiencing cognitive dissonance, the uncomfortable state of believing two contradictory things at the same time. So you can choose to believe science on this and that and the other thing but then to suspend that in order to believe various religious principles or claims, but if you attempt to believe both at the same time, where they collide, then you have a problem called cognitive dissonance.
Let me offer an example: whether you believe the creation account in the bible or not, it is part of the story offered by the Christian religion (this example, as an example, does not depend upon you being Christian). It is not possible to simultaneously believe it and in biological evolution. One or the other has to be modified since the two openly and directly contradict one another. Some people, for instance, believe that evolution happened but that God guided it. That's fine, but it's not what is in the bible that teaches them about their God, and it's not supported formally by any of the doctrines of the religions that predate Darwin's big explanation. In other words, to believe this is to change the religious account in order to fit the evidence of evolution. That's fine, again, but a person who does this now believes in a different God than someone who takes the bible literally. The literalist believes in a God that made everything as is in six days, humans out of clay and breath, while the God-guides-evolutionist believes in a God that did not do this and that proceeded by an entirely different mechanism. However you want to shake it out, those are not the same God.
Mitzi wrote: "Christina, be forewarned. Having a discussion with James is futile. He's Mr. Know-it-all who refuses to admit he's wrong at all cost! And his downfall makes it impossible to have a normal human ..."Hi Mitzi. I know I called you a troll and you don't like it, but your claim is baseless. That I have thought out my positions very carefully over a long time and thus am quite sure of them is quite distinct from being a "know-it-all who refuses to admit [I'm] wrong at all cost!" Indeed, the reason I'm so sure of my positions is because I've spent so long challenging them myself--I almost never assume that I am right and usually try to figure out how I'm wrong until I can't anymore. What you're engaging in here is a rhetorical technique known as "poisoning the well."
I do appreciate the fact that you've identified that I'm quite sure of many of my positions. I invite you, urge you even, to find a position upon which you can present a sound enough argument to challenge those positions. I assure you, it happens frequently, but you're going to have to up your game to get it here.
James wrote: "I'd still attribute it to the fear of death with highest probability. A fear of social rejection should be prominent on the list as well, as might a fear of change.You should be afraid of immorta..."
I agree with James on this point. The need for a Biblical god has alot to do with people's fear of dying. I would add to that however, that it also relies on people wanting to have a sense of purpose or order to the universe.
Having a discussion about why man has a need for god could definately be very interesting. But this Biblical god that people need is very different from the "god" I am referring to in the thread title. What I am referring to in the thread title is the Unknown thing that is responsible for creating the universe.
So there are two Gods we are talking about here. The Biblical god, the god of christianity and Islam and most organized religions. Then the "real" god - the unknown physical phenomenon responsible for the creation of the universe.
Not to be pedantic, Ed, but there are more than two Gods at play here already: a few biblical-based Gods and the deist's creator-god (which seems to be what you're arguing for), at the least. If we want to talk about Christianity and Islam and most organized religions, we're going to open a huge can of worms (its own very interesting discussion) about whether or not those are even the same God. I'm going with "no, they're not."
I've never been one to run from a messy can of worms James. I think the Biblical God, or the Organized Relgion God, or the Capital letter 'G' God or whatever you want to call it, no matter which religion, has its basic roots in mankind wanting to have a sense of order and/or purpose to reality.
The other god - the lower case "g" god that I am referring to in the thread comes from a curiousity about the universe and how it operates.
Honestly, I know next to nothing about the 'Upper Case G' God. I never paid attention in church and never had any use for the gobbily gook that organized religion has ever tried to spew on me. I must admit though, that I do find the fire and brimstone theatrics of the Baptist ceremonies fairly entertaining.
There are literally thousands of recognized and entirely incomptaible "Organized Religion Gods," so lumping them under one canopy is incorrect. In the old days, it was heretical, which was a death sentence.This "lower-case god" you're arguing for also comes in dozens of flavors. Let me name some. You pick which one you're arguing for, or describe it if I don't get it right.
1. creator of the universe
2. moral lawgiver
3. higher power that permeates everything
4. sense of purpose
5. collective oneness
6. that which cannot be defined
7. the laws of physics
8. the animating spirit in everything
9. that substance that makes reality real
10. cosmic justice
11. the uncaused first cause
12. the (Platonic) ideal of goodness
13. Logos, or rather, that which defines logic.
That's one baker's dozen. We can come up with more if we have to. Those are not the same things. Which is yours?
Now the hard question: why should anyone care about any of them? What do they do?
Ed Wagemann wrote: "The other god - the lower case "g" god that I am referring to in the thread comes from a curiousity about the universe and how it operates .."He also has consciousness and a huge package.
Amen.
I will definitely look into that book.I don't believe in the biblical God.
The problem with that definition of God, besides being a non-explanation to fill in the gaps in our understanding of the universe is that the God of the Gaps is doomed to continually shrink in scope and importance as we answer more and more questions.
That's why I asked that last question. I completely believe that science can answer the questions of our universe. I accept science's explanation of how the universe began. The unknown in our universe doesn't bother me and I don't feel a need to fill in the gaps. I just don't accept that as any proof of the non-existence of God.
What prompted the creation of the universe is one of the main reasons I believe in God. The others are more difficult to explain. I'll have to refine those explanations a little more so I don't come off sounding like a hippie (no offense intended to hippies).
I notice that these discussions always seem to come back to the creation or nature of the universe. Do you believe that there is anything outside or more than the universe? Does atheism?
Christina wrote: " I would still fear death even if I did not believe in God."Just curious Christina but if you did not believe in God why would you fear death? Or more importantly what aspect of it.
For example I would say I do not fear being dead, but I do have an aversion to the potential pain involved in the process of dying, and indeed I haven't quite finished with the whole "living" bit yet.
However, I find that a fear of death often seems to come from an inability for the ego to imagine it's non-existence. So people fear being dead as if they would somehow experience it, or experience nothingness. I know I had the same mental block on the concept for a long time.
In the end I realised that being dead wouldn't be an issue for me. I would not experience nothingness or 'oblivion', I simply would not be there to experience. There would not be a me to suffer 'death' just a cessation of being.
It is hard to imagine (perhaps impossible) because to imagine it we have to put ourselves in a place to experience it, yet we cannot experience non-experience. The old idea of "it's just like going to sleep" is right, except our experience of "going to sleep" is actually of waking (whether partially through dreams, or totally next morning) we never directly experience a loss of consciousness, so death itself is something each one of us will never know.
Gary, one of the reasons is exactly what you stated. I go back and forth. The thought of not existing terrifies me, and then I remind myself that if I didn't exist, I wouldn't be experiencing it. Sometimes I think I could use a break and oblivion might be nice. But then again, I have to remind myself that I wouldn't be experiencing it.Logically, I recognize this, but those pesky human weaknesses keep creeping in.
That goes the same for if there is something after we die. It sounds childish, but the fears are more of, I'll be all alone and won't know anyone. I don't want to go anywhere without my family.
Yes I know neither makes any sense but I don't think we are capable of fully comprehending either. Maybe that is what sparks the fear- that both are beyond my comprehension and there's nothing I can do about it.
I guess the other aspect is being conscious of the fact that I am going to die. That really stinks.
I think believers get a bad rap. This is usually why I just follow these kinds of conversations. My discussions on atheism or God are usually one on one with someone I know. There are so many out there who would look at what I just wrote and think, "She's an idiot," without even knowing me. For me, that's when the conversation ends. I mean seriously, how does a believer talk about a God that is beyond science without sounding like he's on drugs?
I love intelligent debate but it seems to be a dying art and is being replaced with name-calling. I appreciate that while I am not nearly as up on science as you all are, no one has resorted to personal insults. Thanks for that.
Yeah, I just read that over again. I don't sit around and think about this stuff all the time. I do actually have a life.
Christina wrote: "Logically, I recognize this, but those pesky human weaknesses keep creeping in."Part of addressing these weaknesses is recognising them and not trying to hide from them so congratulations. :-)
I went back and forth for a long time, and may do so again, but I have a lot of experience in being objective about feelings.
Christina wrote: "That goes the same for if there is something after we die. It sounds childish, but the fears are more of, I'll be all alone and won't know anyone. I don't want to go anywhere without my family."
Actually my fears in that regard were far more esoteric. Imagine someone with PTSD or other traumatic memories that still haunt them, then imagine an eternity with them. The standard response is that will somehow 'all get sorted out' yet sometimes that pain becomes intrinsic to a person and makes them who they are, and even betters them if they don't let it defeat them. If it all 'gets sorted out' then that is a potential loss of identity and personality that would be worse than death.
Christina wrote: "Yes I know neither makes any sense but I don't think we are capable of fully comprehending either. Maybe that is what sparks the fear- that both are beyond my comprehension and there's nothing I can do about it."
"Mankind's strongest emotion is fear, and the strongest fear is fear of the unknown..." H.P.Lovecraft (attributed)
This is where understanding and comprehension part company. We can understand things without comprehending them completely. We imagine electrons as little shiny spheres, but know they cannot be 'shiny' or even seen because they are smaller than the light that illuminates them. However we can understand how electrons interact and what they can do.
Christina wrote: "I guess the other aspect is being conscious of the fact that I am going to die. That really stinks."
Or you could realise that you alone amongst the billions of people who may have been your parent's child, has a brief gift of existence. You can use that gift as you like, but when it's gone it's gone. Therefore, what is the point in self-aggrandisement or selfishness? That goes when you do. Instead you can effect others precious, brief, lives throughout your own and thereby have a positive effect on those that outlast you.
In my opinion the idea of eternal life or life after death makes any finite existence seem cheap. Only people who know that life is rare, precious and fleeting can truly appreciate its value.
Christina wrote: " I mean seriously, how does a believer talk about a God that is beyond science without sounding like he's on drugs?"
It's a good question, and if I may, also the source of the problem.
Science isn't a little compartment, or a subject we do at school that we forget in other lessons. Science is the process of comprehending and understanding existence.
By this concept, there is no "beyond science" because if there were, science should then try to address it because it is part of existence.
No part of the human experience is beyond science, but indeed some of it would be incredibly complex to understand.
Science is in the end just a process of trying to comprehend existence through a method that tries to look beyond our own prejudices and ideas to see what is there independent of our own views.
Christina wrote: "I love intelligent debate but it seems to be a dying art and is being replaced with name-calling. I appreciate that while I am not nearly as up on science as you all are, no one has resorted to personal insults. Thanks for that. "
I agree entirely, on both points. I also try not to be insulting unless it is in a strong response to something insulting. The real problem there is sometimes points of view are so different that people cannot understand why the other person is insulted.
I am occasionally surprised when people think I am being condescending when trying to explain a complex idea I spent years trying to comprehend within a few paragraphs. Some people are surprised when I find the idea that my opinion is "just another belief" like their own is insulting. So sometimes it is hard to avoid unintentional insult.
For example many people talk on these threads about atheists attacking their religion, and how they should be free to believe what they want. Yet it is hard to make people realise that through their faith they condone and support ideas and policies that effect everyone, sometimes really strongly, so that the non-believers feel like they are already marginalised and under attack.
Imagine being told all your life that you were incapable of morality if you don't have faith.
I am occasionally surprised when people think I am being condescending when trying to explain a complex idea I spent years trying to comprehend within a few paragraphs.I don't have that problem. The discussions would be quite boring if we agreed on everything. What I am talking about is, for example, someone made a comment on the other thread about 'theodicy.' And that's a subtle one in comparison to others I have seen. If anyone is converted by such name calling, they were already on their way toward atheism. I'm not going to convert to atheism because someone calls me an idiot.
Yet it is hard to make people realise that through their faith they condone and support ideas and policies that effect everyone, sometimes really strongly, so that the non-believers feel like they are already marginalised and under attack.
This is another place we disagree. To me that sounds like, "You drink alcohol, so you unintentionally condone drunk driving." Not a perfect example, but I'm sure you understand my point. I'm Catholic and I was a little nervous about Rick Santorum. I'd have no problem voting for an atheist if I agreed with his policies and didn't get the impression that he was going to attempt to legally restrict me because I am a believer.
And just for the record, I don't equate morality with religiosity or even belief in God. Again, I am not the only one, it's just that those who do are exceptionally loud. I am not loud because I don't think yelling in people's faces works. I try to lead by example- educate myself about other points of view, befriend all kinds of people and have intelligent and respectful conversations.
In my opinion the idea of eternal life or life after death makes any finite existence seem cheap. Only people who know that life is rare, precious and fleeting can truly appreciate its value.
I completely understand the logic behind this one, but again, I disagree. I live my life in constant awe of everything around me. Even though I believe there is something after death, I am in no rush to get there. I kind of like it here. I may be curious, but I am in no rush to find out what happens next.
Science is in the end just a process of trying to comprehend existence through a method that tries to look beyond our own prejudices and ideas to see what is there independent of our own views.
I agree, but there are arguments that the possibility of God can be dismissed due to lack of evidence. The way I see it, scientists would be the best equipped to find evidence, if that is even possible. Think of all the things that would not have been discovered if they had been dismissed due to lack of evidence and then it turned out the evidence was there and we just didn't understand it. Maybe it is just me, but I don't want my scientists to stop looking for what seems improbable right now.
Christina wrote: "Gary, one of the reasons is exactly what you stated. I go back and forth. The thought of not existing terrifies me, and then I remind myself that if I didn't exist, I wouldn't be experiencing it. S..."I'm with you on this one Christina. I might no go as far as saying 'the thought of not existing terrifies me' but it certainly is about the saddest thing I can think of. And it certainly doesnt seem fair.
I mean why are we given this amazing gift of conscious existence, only to be teased for 80 years or so and then spend the rest of eternity in total non-evistence. Some might argue, well when you are dead and you are non-existing, it won't really matter, so don't sweat it.
Okay, that's fine, but how can you not sweat it? It makes you think, Gee, if I'm just going to end up in non-existence then what's the point of doing anything? Why get out of bed and eat, why take a bath, why take a dump, why do anything?
SOMETHING is motivating us to do this. There is something that causes us each to get out of bed each morning. There is some Unknown that propels the atoms and particles of the universe through time and space.
I agree, but there are arguments that the possibility of God can be dismissed due to lack of evidence. The way I see it, scientists would be the best equipped to find evidence, if that is even possible. Think of all the things that would not have been discovered if they had been dismissed due to lack of evidence and then it turned out the evidence was there and we just didn't understand it. Maybe it is just me, but I don't want my scientists to stop looking for what seems improbable right now.
That's a great paragraph - my sentiments exactly!
So many people need to read my book, but I'm so bad at marketing. God damn it?
Christina wrote: "If anyone is converted by such name calling, they were already on their way toward atheism. I'm not going to convert to atheism because someone calls me an idiot."Obviously, and I agree. Funnily enough though I find the concept of "conversion" to "atheism" quite irritating, though I know most theists would not realise why. If you convert to a belief in atheism, you are not an atheist. The whole point is not to believe in things but to accept ideas, and be willing to change your opinions when evidence demands.
Christina wrote: "This is another place we disagree. To me that sounds like, "You drink alcohol, so you unintentionally condone drunk driving." Not a perfect example, but I'm sure you understand my point."
I think I do, and I understand your point in making it. Yet it is my opinion, reinforced by copious evidence, that extremists are not a problem for religion, they are a symptom. Because belief replaces reason it is easy to see why a person who completely commits to their beliefs is capable of terrible acts. Yet the moderates will then condemn the person while lauding the very beliefs that led to that act.
To take your analogy, if I was to advocate that drinking makes you a better person, and then someone gets killed by a drunk driver, I wouldn't say "hey actually I was wrong", I would say "hey, he was a bad driver obviously".
I do realise that many people (as you seem to) do manage to function with logic and rationality, but even they, I have seen, can succumb to bad things thanks to their faith. I know otherwise lovely Christians who honestly believe that women are inferior to men, that gay people are perverts and I have even met one or two who were outright racists thanks to their religious beliefs.
I do agree with your point on Santorum (what a horrible man) but the fact he could come out and say a lot of what he did on a public platform without his political career vanishing instantly shows exactly how 'moderate' believers are still being apologists for some horrible ideas.
Christina wrote: "And just for the record, I don't equate morality with religiosity or even belief in God. Again, I am not the only one, it's just that those who do are exceptionally loud."
Yes, I know that perhaps the majority of believers in the western world no longer really think that.
The problem isn't the loudness of the people who do believe that, it's the silence from their moderate comrades that means they get away with such things.
Christina wrote: "I completely understand the logic behind this one, but again, I disagree."
That's fine. I once thought the same and yet now I can hardly imagine thinking that way.
Christina wrote: "I agree, but there are arguments that the possibility of God can be dismissed due to lack of evidence."
As I covered earlier the problem here is that religious people tend to assume that the question is an even sided "does god exist or not", and that god tends to be very similar to the culturally inherited god. In fact the question itself closes options to us by assuming that the presence or absence of god is the only possible choice.
After I rejected Christianity after reading the bible I did for a long time look around for something to "believe in", until finally I realised that looking for something to believe in was really just trying to find any answer instead of accepting the question and the amazing places that the question might lead.
Christina wrote: "Think of all the things that would not have been discovered if they had been dismissed due to lack of evidence and then it turned out the evidence was there and we just didn't understand it. Maybe it is just me, but I don't want my scientists to stop looking for what seems improbable right now. "
Yet look at all the things that we found because we stopped assuming and actually looked. Look at all the evidence we would have missed if we assumed what was there instead of looking for the evidence of what is actually there.
Take the threads question. In actuality for a cosmologist it is painfully simplistic and rooted in ideas that were surpassed two millennia ago. It completely ignores some of the things we now know about the universe and how it works. We do not know the answer yet but it is likely to be far more amazing than the rather mundane answer offered.
I can illustrate with at least two very interesting and thought provoking concepts, but I am not sure I can do them justice... At least not in post form.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Okay, that's fine, but how can you not sweat it? It makes you think, Gee, if I'm just going to end up in non-existence then what's the point of doing anything? Why get out of bed and eat, why take a bath, why take a dump, why do anything?"Because you only have now to do it? Write a book, go hang-gliding, help your fellow man.
If life was eternal, then I can see the pointlessness of it all. Why do anything when you have infinite time to do it? Why strive to better yourself, or why go out and do things if everything is going to be much better in the afterlife anyway.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "SOMETHING is motivating us to do this. There is something that causes us each to get out of bed each morning."
Yup, usually a need to go to the loo.
Seriously what is it that makes religiously inclined people to put things in capitals to make it more "mysterious" and "portentous". Is it perhaps because of the modern typed bible which tends to capitalise the term LORD?
Ed Wagemann wrote: "There is some Unknown that propels the atoms and particles of the universe through time and space."
That would be gravity.
Since this is going in circles, I wonder if another thread will start soon with exactly the same topic.Gary, you're a trooper, and this is coming from someone who is usually called a trooper in this exact sense. Of course, I can't get dislodged from my head the thought a friend of mine planted in there recently (he's an evolutionary biologist): "I get paid at work to teach exactly this. Why should I keep giving it out on the internet for free to people who won't even listen to me? I've asked them to pay me, but then they call me arrogant, so they get nothing."
I certainly see no proof of there being any god in the classical christian religious sence of some white-haired deep-voice man in a robe who lives in the clouds and who is looking down on us and judging our every move. The Biblical God seems more a character from a Fairy Tale or a Christmas story to be honest.
But I Do have a somewhat different defintion of the actual word "god" and my defintion allows for the "possbility" that "god" exsits.
My defintion is this: A conscious thing (force, entity, energy or whatever) that is responsible for the creation of the universe.
Under this defintion, logic and science can be used to show that the existence of God is possible.