You can believe anything...but if you want it to matter outside of your head, you better prove it.
Why is there something instead of nothing? That's a question that is, as of yet, out of scope of science. It might not stay that way-science tends to expand its scope, and you cannot predict what it will be able to prove no better than Plato could predict geostationary satellites. Such questions, having not yet established a logical order and empirical connection, have by default infinite number of possible answers, as there is nothing limiting the possibilities.
If God didn't exist, atheists would have to invent him.
Ignore List (to save time):
Exarch, Coughdrop addict
Ergo he has to exist, isn't it? Unless we are figments of our own imagination, that is.
I am aware that faith does not require rational thought, it's probably it's greatest nemesis as your self defeating arguments suggest - but then I spoke about belief, something that I think has a residue of rationality as it is born out of the desire to get answers. Faith is acceptance without questioning, fine by me btw, I just don't subscribe to it, but then I am no good at blindly following orders either.
Anyone else having an actual opinion on what I surmised?
I did not dispute that God has to exist: I disputed that the wording "God has to exist" was a "better fit" than "God exists" for the point I was making.
1. Assuming that humans believe in God because God exists is not irrational.I am aware that faith does not require rational thought, it's probably it's greatest nemesis as your self defeating arguments suggest - but then I spoke about belief, something that I think has a residue of rationality as it is born out of the desire to get answers. Faith is acceptance without questioning, fine by me btw, I just don't subscribe to it, but then I am no good at blindly following orders either.
Anyone else having an actual opinion on what I surmised?
2. Faith is relevant with respect to theism, not deism. There is nothing inherently less rational about a prime mover explanation than say, an infinite regress theory.
I've decided that the real world I'm living in is The Wheel of Time. Any reason why I'm wrong or is that just as valid a point of view as any other?
@Gig - I'm still thinking about what you posted. I'll reply once I've thought it through a bit more.
Last edited by chriscase; May 15, 2019 at 12:43 PM.
Why is it that mysteries are always about something bad? You never hear there's a mystery, and then it's like, "Who made cookies?"
- Demetri Martin
Assumptions are in the majority rational as they are mostly based on perceptions and not on conjecture. That doesn't make the perceived matter rational by default. Might be a good idea if we agree that I have a problem with arguments that include 'because God exists', mostly due to it's impossibility of proof and self fulfilment of the argument, and you don't.
A take on it other then the default 'we believe because God exists' is appreciated.
In order to accept that belief, you have to ignore the empirical evidence and principles that you had to accept in order to find out about Wheel of Time, making your belief inconsistent and paradoxical. Fine if you just believe yourself, all you'll be doing is hurting your chances in real world and you'll probably get laughed at outside of any fantasy con, but if you try to proselytize such belief, it'll be a real ethical problem.
@epi1c_fail if the concept in question has an empirical connection and a logic can be presumed from its definition, then it's possible to prove or disprove it. But a god, by any kind of definition, even if they're so lacking, acts with free will, and is therefore occasionalistic concept, making it not subject to a logic, and thus impossible to prove or disprove. And because we assume some kind of logic underlying every empirically verifiable phenomena, because it's impossible to utilize, or logically encompass in any way, phenomena that are presumed to be occasionalistic, the concept of god becomes vacuous and irrelevant.
It doesn't make it irrational either.
The existence of neurobiological functions which enable us to perceive God aren't absolute proof, in and of themselves, that God exists.The difference between us is that your starting point assumes said perceptions to be a product of evolutionary deception whereas mine does not; you assume sensory fault where I do not. If a foundational assumption of your investigation is that God cannot exist then whatever your conclusion, it won't be that God exists. So the real problem isn't that God is impossible to prove; its that God cannot be proven to you.Might be a good idea if we agree that I have a problem with arguments that include 'because God exists', mostly due to it's impossibility of proof and self fulfilment of the argument, and you don't.
Last edited by Cope; May 15, 2019 at 02:58 PM.
It's really amusing to see theism described as a cognitive malfunction or delusion, given that a delusion by definition goes against the mainstream understanding of reality. Since a vast majority of people in virtually every culture in history can sense the divine, who are more likely to be the ones suffering from a malfunction: the 96% of humanity who perceive divinity or the 4% who don't? The consensus gentium seems to be pretty firmly on the side of theism.
Ignore List (to save time):
Exarch, Coughdrop addict
Never claimed that.
Agreed, it boils down to what ones criteria for proof are. Acceptance of proof based on unquestoning faith (It is because it is) isn't mine.
Not that long ago the consensus was that the earth is flat and the centre of the universe. Religious practice made sure that other notions were suppressed for a considerable time. Your point being that acceptance of the existence of God is a temporary fashion and requires enforcement?
Consensus certainly isn't proof. Afterthought: source of your numbers?
You claimed it by implication.
To reiterate, faith is only directly relevant to theism not deism; the prime mover theory is a logical deduction. Though once again I get the distinct impression that your disdain for faith is another example of you holding your own psychology in contempt; your starting position is to treat it as an evolutionary mistake rather than a valid response. This sort of cynicism often leads people into disregarding entire fields of human learning on the basis of misplaced assumptions.Agreed, it boils down to what ones criteria for proof are. Acceptance of proof based on unquestoning faith (It is because it is) isn't mine.
There are two criterion for the existence of God and that is experience and evidence but not necessarily in that order. Following the evidence in this case exposes the life and claims of Jesus Christ as both a historical figure and God and there are enough witnessed writings that confirm this. Is it evidencial or delusional that 66 books written over some four/five thousand years cannot be trusted at all? Is it delusional that His disciples down through the ages were prepared to die for what they experienced in Him and still to this day are? We know that God exists because of HIm and we know of Him because of all that was predicted about Him from the very beginning by God. The evidence that not all or even near to all will not believe is the experience of every person ever born until the moment God calls out to them who are saved or yet to be saved. This is not delusional either as the evidence for that prediction is overwhelming.
Gigantus, my argument isn't that most people are religious, therefore religion is true. It's that almost every human being in almost every culture possesses the sensus divinitatis, so if anyone is delusional or suffers from a cognitive malfunction, it's probably people who can't sense what everyone else has no trouble sensing. Now, personally I don't think nontheism is a cognitive malfunction, but I really get tired of the sense of intellectual superiority that many atheists exude, as if 99% of human beings in human history are blithering retards, while atheists are the few, the proud, the rational, the only human beings with a functioning brain. It's like a blind man calling 99% of humanity delusional for thinking they can see.
Ignore List (to save time):
Exarch, Coughdrop addict
Nope, we've been here before. Faith is relevant for deism as well as theism, or any other religious position. Prime mover is not a logical deduction either-it might seem so at first, but you end up doing faith frogger until the truck of logic splatters your weak reasoning....like happened here: https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...as-story/page5
I do agree with you that the capacity for abstract thought sits at the center of speculation about why/how the human species evolved the way we did. It's hard to even begin to imagine what our trajectory would have been without abstract thought. Obviously we wouldn't be trying to imagine such a thing, or anything else.
Some time back sumskilz made a thread tracing the etymology of ancient biblical terms regarding faith:
I tend to think our capacity for abstract thought encompasses a wider range of modes of consciousness, some what we'd call "ordinary", others less so. The mind seems to have a variety of sort-of "default" templates, cognitive patterns that will match almost anything. I think the religious impulse and the "what's under my bed" terror live in this rather murky area of the psyche, and exist as templates for reasons that are likely ultimately to make sense from the perspective of survival in ancient times.
Rationality and the expectation that we can incrementally chip away at the body of unknown, not-understood causes of natural events have become convincing enough to at least some of us, but I doubt the primeval makeup of our brains is going to change all that quickly. After all, we aren't very far away from those ancients on the evolutionary time scale. And under the right circumstances, I'm sure that wiring might take over once again. It's probably a failsafe in our minds, like the difference between a buggy OS and a wiped hard drive. If the sophisticated rational brain gets overwhelmed, a really primitive set of perceptive overlays might be the only way to avoid catatonia.
Like I said earlier, this is all speculation, but if we're going to entertain the possibility of magic man in the sky, I think a bit of less fantastical speculation can be tolerated.
Why is it that mysteries are always about something bad? You never hear there's a mystery, and then it's like, "Who made cookies?"
- Demetri Martin