The oldest debate Gets Older

[tinyj316]

I know this isn't very constructive, or on topic at all, really, but it somewhat applies

[Sonthert]

Well, if he's an omnipotent, omnipresent entity, wouldn't you have to?

Yes, but logically contradictory characteristics go back to what I was saying before. The statement there is a god is non-sensical. I could attribute the characteristic "cold" to the moon Triton. Its a logical and rational characteristic ascribed from rational observation. Is Triton cold? Yes, it is the one of the coldest bodies in the Solar System. In relation to what? To absolute zero, the lowest temperature possible. The observation has referential context. This is a perfectly rational description of the moon Triton. You can't ascribe contradictory observations to things, simply put. I might remind you, that is the purpose of this thread, to examine rational theism.

Gaia: I concur. Glad to see you.


Triton Info

[Barnaby]

Should we end the thread then? The entire concept of God is an irrational one, that relies on philosophy, mysticism, and faith. Its all based on conjecture, and a gut feeling of knowing it to be so. There is no hard proof that backs it up, its all in the realm of what ifs, and maybes. I don't think that anyone has shown any different thus far.

But back to the realm of devil's advocate, The only way for a God to be omnipotent, and omnipresent, is if it was a part of all things. So, you, me, the dog, Triton, the air, everything would inherently have to be God. So, the point of reference doesn't really apply anymore, since God is everything. He is Buddha, and he is Jesus, all at the same time. He is the convicted serial rapist, and he is Mother Theresa. Now, this is all my own personal conjecture of course, as to if there was a God, what would it be. They say we were created in God's image, but I think the other way would be more true. We can only think of what we know, so obviously God would be a single entity, vs. more of an energy that is a part of everything.

I understand where you are coming from Eric, in assigning contradictory statements, but I hope you see where I'm trying to come from as well, in that God would have to be everything to truly meet all the characteristics assigned.

Now, do I think this is true? Hard to say really. I've seen my share of odd occurrences that make me wonder, as they do tend to lack a logical explanation, but I'm naturally a skeptic, so still I search.

[Stuie]

3 pages ... and i thought the oldest debate was the chicken or the egg thing... either way i like them both fried!

/attempt at humor

[Sonthert]

Should we end the thread then? The entire concept of God is an irrational one, that relies on philosophy, mysticism, and faith. Its all based on conjecture, and a gut feeling of knowing it to be so. There is no hard proof that backs it up, its all in the realm of what ifs, and maybes. I don't think that anyone has shown any different thus far.

But back to the realm of devil's advocate, The only way for a God to be omnipotent, and omnipresent, is if it was a part of all things. So, you, me, the dog, Triton, the air, everything would inherently have to be God. So, the point of reference doesn't really apply anymore, since God is everything. He is Buddha, and he is Jesus, all at the same time. He is the convicted serial rapist, and he is Mother Theresa. Now, this is all my own personal conjecture of course, as to if there was a God, what would it be. They say we were created in God's image, but I think the other way would be more true. We can only think of what we know, so obviously God would be a single entity, vs. more of an energy that is a part of everything.

I understand where you are coming from Eric, in assigning contradictory statements, but I hope you see where I'm trying to come from as well, in that God would have to be everything to truly meet all the characteristics assigned.

Now, do I think this is true? Hard to say really. I've seen my share of odd occurrences that make me wonder, as they do tend to lack a logical explanation, but I'm naturally a skeptic, so still I search.

Um, no, we should let the rational theists have their turn rather than just dismissing their belief in god and Jesus Christ as irrational.

The characteristics ascribed to god are often self-contradictory. As the old saw goes, if god were omniscient, he would know how to create a stone that he couldn't move, which would violate the principle of him being omnipotent. Again, thats all fine, but let the rational theists make their point rather than performing a straw man fallacy on it.

[Barnaby]

I was being sarcastic. I'd love to see some rational debate from both sides.. We haven't gotten too far is all.. I'm just wondering if anyone will chime in.. Did the judge go on vacation or something???

[Sonthert]

Yeah, he did. He came to visit me.

[Barnaby]

Ah, well that explains it then..

[gaia.plateau]

3 pages ... and i thought the oldest debate was the chicken or the egg thing... either way i like them both fried!

/attempt at humor

If one accepts any theory of evolution, it was the egg.

But yeah. Since Mesopotamians, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans all eschewed religious argument, I don't think it's tremendously old.

Ear infection conquered, I can smoke again. What's up.

[Barnaby]

I guess its decided.. Samuel L. Jackson is God....

/thread

[momatik]

You should be careful about quoting Zeitgeist. There are more than just a few myths past on as facts in that video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYNmFQkHBaE

If you spent the time to see the argument Zeitgeist presents, you should take the time to see the argument against it.

Just to let you know what happens, he basically just quotes multiple professors and asks them about specific parallels Zeitgeist presents.

[Dr. B]

So I have a specific appeal to make. Not necessarily that this is my case, but it's the latest impasse I have reached in my thoughts on the matter.

Eric, you say that believing in a higher power is unreasonable because one cannot have reasonable faith in its existence; but what say you to those who have claimed to have met their maker? Wouldn't the case be that their faith becomes reasonable because they have encountered, and therefore have reason to expect the presence of, G-d? Their testimony fails to be act as proof (scientifically speaking) but because they have observed what they believe to be a greater force is it not foolish to assert that their belief in the divine presence is mere speculation (by you interpretation of the word, in contrast to reasonable assurance). Is it the lack of a clear definition which troubles you? Or is it that you stereotype believers as being content with "half the story", so to speak.

If one cannot have faith in what they cannot expect (as you assert) and cannot have faith in what they have encountered, what is left to establish any notion of order or predictability in our lives?

[Sonthert]

So I have a specific appeal to make. Not necessarily that this is my case, but it's the latest impasse I have reached in my thoughts on the matter.

Eric, you say that believing in a higher power is unreasonable because one cannot have reasonable faith in its existence; but what say you to those who have claimed to have met their maker? Wouldn't the case be that their faith becomes reasonable because they have encountered, and therefore have reason to expect the presence of, G-d? Their testimony fails to be act as proof (scientifically speaking) but because they have observed what they believe to be a greater force is it not foolish to assert that their belief in the divine presence is mere speculation (by you interpretation of the word, in contrast to reasonable assurance). Is it the lack of a clear definition which troubles you? Or is it that you stereotype believers as being content with "half the story", so to speak.

If one cannot have faith in what they cannot expect (as you assert) and cannot have faith in what they have encountered, what is left to establish any notion of order or predictability in our lives?

There are a number of people who have claimed to have seen Sasquatch, some even claimed to have met one or more Sasquatches. Some people have claimed to have seen aliens, some have claimed to have met one or more of them as well. Some people claim to have extraordinary mental powers (which I do not dismiss out of hand necessarily for a number of reasons) In the light of examination, though, these claims are never substantial, they lack any physical proof. Some proof is offered on occasion, but when examined, it ends up being dismissable as irrelevant or falsified. The same is true for people who have seen or talked to god. Their claims are never physical and if they are, their proof is reasonably refutable.

People had, for a number of years, talked about a mysterious fish that was unlike any fish they had ever seen. Nobody could bring a specimen to light, so their claims were ignored or ridiculed. Sometime in the early 1940s, people found this same fish, a Coelocanth. There is a difference between god and a coelocanth, however. A coelocanth is a physical thing, it can be perceived with the five senses. It could, in 1920, be said reasonably that somebody might have faith that coelocanths existed. Perhaps they saw one wriggle out of a fish net. Perhaps their father told a story of catching and releasing one. This is different than god, however, god is not a physical creature, it cannot be perceived with the five senses, so it must be irrational to advocate the existence of god...since their can be no physicality to a non-physical being...so no objective, reasonable proof of the existence of god could be offered. Despite people claiming to have "met" him.

Somebody once asked, years ago, "Why is that nobody can take a non-grainy picture of a UFO that looks actually like a UFO?" I ask you a similar question in regards to people's physical proof of god. Why can;t somebody offer actual proof of god? Something tangible, irrefutable? Because he is a non-physical being, by definition, so refer back to my previous comments on proving non-physical beings existence.

There is a wide swath of people who are mentally disturbed, liars or make up a story or repeat a story for what they view as the benefit of others. These people might claim that psychic powers are real, see aliens, Sasquatch, god or what have you. Some of them even claim to be these same things. These people are not new, their incidence is well documented throughout history. People with particular imbalances often from drugs or homelessness will make extraordinary claims. Their minds create a delusion that they need to be important and noticed. Interestingly, a number of people are sane before they become homeless, have delusions after becoming homeless and then stop having delusions when they get back on their feet again. People who become homeless with close acquaintances/family members are far less likely to have these delusions. People who feel or are socially isolated are more likely to suffer delusions. There is a strong association with societal belonging and delusions. The whole psychology of it is quite interesting. Some religious claims are associated with isolation and some are associated with "one upsmanship" where other members of their social group have substantial advances in their lives, leaving the person psychologically to need to become more exceptional. If obvious, physically provable means aren't available, they may move to non-physical claims to bolster their standing in their social circle. The whole brain chemistry/activity maps are quite interesting. People eschewing supernatural claim's brains are working on the areas of memorization rather than from perceptual centers.

None of this really speaks about the existence of supernatural agencies. Undoubtedly, there are aliens on other planets, but none of the people who claim to have seen them can reasonably prove their claims. Extraterrestrials are more like coelocanths in that there should be some physical proof of the existence of them, since they are physical items. Of course, in 1920, they didn't believe a fish species which had turned out to be millions of years old existed either. Could it be reasonably said that all the people claiming to have seen strange fish were talking about coelocanths? Not at all. In the same way that people who claim to have seen or met aliens don't have matching descriptions. Some people making extraordinary claims have clearly started new lineages of claims, where others have made redundant claims. Like aliens, there are the classic, large eyed, small nosed bald aliens and then there are much larger aliens. Each represents a different lineage of claim.

As Carl Sagan put it: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." So, no I don't necessarily think that claimants are universally crazy or are operating with half the story. How would you classify a person who claimed that they had met aliens from another planet that had told them there was no god but lacked any proof of their meeting? Would you stop believing in god? If you believe the people that have "met" god...you can't believe the person claiming that aliens insisted that there was no god. Your own personal biases make one claim plausible and the other ridiculous. In terms, though, since none of them have "extraordinary" proof, objectively, you would have to dismiss the claims. You choose to believe the claims or disbelieve them when they lack evidence, I dismiss almost all extraordinary claims universally, since none have ever proven out with extraordinary evidence.

In terms, non-physical proof (people's claims) do not qualify as a basis for reasonable faith. Reasonable faith stems from things that can be perceived by the claimant and other people around them with the five senses. Your question equivocates the word reason. I defined the context of the word "reason" and then you used the word with a different context to try and prove your point. Just because you perceive something in your brain doesn't make it reasonable to believe in it. I knew a chronic NHT user who claimed that she talked to god. Is it reasonable now that there is a god? Is it reasonable for her to believe in god? No, to both. She only talks to god after using NHT for a couple of months straight. Whether its in your head, or in the perceptible world, "proof" must exist to accept it as reasonable. She couldn't offer any physical proof of her claims, yet she believed them. If, on the other hand, you accept that what people claim, without proof or bias on your part, you would have to believe in ghosts, the Mafia, the Earth is flat, the government planned and executed the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks, space aliens, that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are space reptiles, Martians, Venusians, the lost continent of Atlantis, Adolph Hitler and Elvis Presley are still alive. You would also have to believe the person who claims that space aliens told him that there is no god. You would have to believe simultaneously contradictory claims.

In terms of Venusians, people believed in them more strongly 100 years ago. now nobody rational would even make them claim. Why? Rationally, the rational chances of there being life on Venus is the same today as it was 100 or 200 years ago...so why a drop off in belief of Venusians? Because physical proof of the chemistry, temperature and pressure on Venus seems to have demonstrated no such possibility of life there. People did believe it...without objective, rational evidence. There might be life on Venus, however. We haven't scoured every square inch. It has become irrational to believe this to be the case, however. In terms of god; there is no rational, physical evidence possible. So, no, it is never rational to believe in something that there is no perceptible evidence/proof for/of.

There are plenty of mental processes that are irrational and have no physical proof that each person believes in. This doesn't make them rational faith. Sometimes people change definitions to use an example to prove their faith. Like true love. Who believes in true love? What proof do you have? An example will often come up which is a liberal interpretation of "true love" or what the observer wants to embody true love. People who don't believe in true love will often attempt to minimize examples, disprove them or remark "they have never seen it." Same sort of thing. Its based on faith I suppose. Is it reasonable or unreasonable? Since there is no fixed definition for true love that is universally accepted, its a relativistic faith, whether reasonable or unreasonable and true love can't exist since it has no absolute definition. I believe that my idea of true love exists, because I have examples of its existence. You might disagree with my definition, however, so its not reasonable for us to agree true love exists since we are equivocating the phrase "True Love". If we each agreed in definition and existence, we would undoubtedly find someone who didn't agree with our definition, making our belief irrational.

Hope that clears up your quandary for you. You an atheist yet?

[Sonthert]

You should be careful about quoting Zeitgeist. There are more than just a few myths past on as facts in that video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYNmFQkHBaE

If you spent the time to see the argument Zeitgeist presents, you should take the time to see the argument against it.

Just to let you know what happens, he basically just quotes multiple professors and asks them about specific parallels Zeitgeist presents.

Laffable.

Part one of Zeitgeist is about 80% true.
Part two of Z is about 35% true.
part three of Z is about 25% true.

Zeitgeist, when placed side by side with the companion piece, Zeitgeist2, is a the framing of utopian Communism. Sheer idiocy.

My father was a religious scholar and he contended the same things regarding god, Jesus and the like as Zeitgeist did. Some of the points made by Zeitgeist, in part 1, are so obviously false, its not even funny. However, the essential message that Christianity is recycled teachings from multiple other religious sources is true. There is no proof that Jesus ever lived outside of the Bible and one passage, almost universally regarded as false, from Josephus' writings.

The essential problem here is etiological. Zeitgeist is a non-fictional work in the same way the bible is non-fiction. You can't refute false points in one by quoting the other, unless its a direct misquote. It's circular. Its just a "what do you believe more, me or him?". Christianity is more than just the Bible.

[momatik]

My father was a religious scholar and he contended the same things regarding god, Jesus and the like as Zeitgeist did. Some of the points made by Zeitgeist, in part 1, are so obviously false, its not even funny. However, the essential message that Christianity is recycled teachings from multiple other religious sources is true. There is no proof that Jesus ever lived outside of the Bible and one passage, almost universally regarded as false, from Josephus' writings.

I disagree. It's one thing to not believe that Christianity is a true religion. It's another thing to believe that Jesus never existed.

Even Tim Callahan, a well known skeptic of the Christian religion, criticized Zeitgeist harshly for it's sloppy approach to debunking Christianity.

Source: http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/...e-of-movie.html

It is worth reading, but I will just quote a few excerpts that point out to me.

Perhaps the worst aspect of “The Greatest Story Ever Told,” Part I of Peter Joseph’s Internet film, Zeitgeist, is that some of what it asserts is true. Unfortunately, this material is liberally — and sloppily — mixed with material that is only partially true and much that is plainly and simply bogus.

The argument that Jesus was a mythical construct has been made before — for example by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy in their 1999 book, The Jesus Mysteries, though Freke and Gandy made their argument with a far greater level of scholarship. In reducing Jesus to a sun god, Joseph ignores — as Freke and Gandy did before him — the powerful current of messianic apocalypticism prevalent in first century Judea.

Joseph next asserts that the gods Horus, Krishna, Mithra and Attys all paralleled Jesus. Again, there is some truth to this, but Joseph mingles so much falsehood with whatever truths he reveals as to give ample ammunition to evangelical Christians who might want to shoot holes in his thesis. First of all, he says that the Egyptian god Horus was adored by three kings, had twelve disciples and was crucified. He says much the same thing about Mithra, as well as noting that Krishna was born on December 25. Almost none of this is true.

This story, like most of Part I of Zeitgeist, is a pastiche of factoid, fiction and ingenious invention. It also betrays a certain naïveté on the part of Peter Joseph in regard to his knowledge of the Bible. This is obvious when he sees in the “Three Kings” of Orion’s belt pointing at Sirius, the source of the magi following the star in the Nativity story of Matthew. At this point, let me ask readers a question: Without looking at a Bible, tell me how many wise men or kings followed the star to Bethlehem. Most likely you answered “Three.” After all, we’ve all heard and sung the popular Christmas carol “We Three Kings of Orient Are.” So weren’t there three kings? Let’s look at the Bible, specifically at Matthew 2:1,2:

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, saying, “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the East and have come to worship him.”

Here he talks about the Josephus quote:

Was there a real Jesus? While the historical evidence is meager, it does exist. In his Antiquities of the Jews, book 20, chapter 9, item 1, referring to the execution of James, Josephus refers to him as the brother of “Jesus, who was called the Christ.” It is quite plain that Josephus didn’t see Jesus as the Christ (Christos, the Greek word meaning “anointed”), he merely recorded that James’ brother was the Jesus who had been called or was alleged to be the Christ.

Beyond this scrap, valuable though it is, we can imply the existence of a historical Jesus from the criteria of embarrassment and difficulty. The criterion of embarrassment says that people do not make up embarrassing details about someone they wish to revere. So, if they say such things about the person, they are probably true. Now let’s apply this to what the Roman historian Tacitus had to say about Jesus early in the second century. Concerning rumors that had spread that Nero had deliberately set fire to the city of Rome, Tacitus says (The Annals of Imperial Rome, Book 1, Chapter 15):

To suppress this rumor, Nero fabricated scapegoats — and punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were called). Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius’ reign by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilatus. But in spite of this temporary setback the deadly superstition had broken out afresh, not only in Judea (where the mischief had started) but even in Rome. All degraded and shameful practices collect and flourish in the capitol.

That Tacitus is obviously a hostile witness makes it much more likely that he accepted Jesus as a real person. Had he reason to suspect he was nothing more than a fabrication, Tacitus would certainly have said so. That author’s claim that Jesus had been executed by Pontius Pilate could only have come from one of two possible sources: Either Tacitus knew this to be true from extant imperial records or he was repeating what Christians themselves had said of Jesus. Were Jesus a mythical character they had invented, they certainly wouldn’t have gone out of their way to invent his being a criminal who had been executed.

In like manner, people do not go out of their way to invent difficulties for a character they have invented. It is clear from the Nativity narratives of the gospels of Matthew and Luke that they were faced with having to explain why Jesus grew up in Galilee if he was born in Bethlehem. Both gospels had to invent rather convoluted means to get Jesus born in Bethlehem in accordance with the messianic prophecy in Micah 5:2, then get him moved to Nazareth. Clearly they were stuck with a real person known to have come from Galilee, when he should have come from Bethlehem. Had they been making Jesus up out of whole cloth, they would simply have said he came from Bethlehem: end of story, no complications. So the evidence for Jesus as a real, historical personage, though meager, is solid.

Again, this man who I'm quoting has been on television debating with Christians over the authenticity of the Christian faith. Even he rejects the theory that Jesus never existed.

I'm not even Christian, but I'm not saying you should exclusively listen to Tim Callahan, or the video I posted earlier,

Just don't be lazy. Check out the claims and the sources.

[Sonthert]

Why listen to/Read these things? The evidence for the existence of Jesus hasn't changed in my lifetime or my father's lifetime. It clearly is failing. Augustus Caesar was a real person, his existence is well documented in numerous sources. Jesus was not. He could have been a real person, but it really is irrelevant, isn't it? Whether Zeus and Jupiter or Jesus were real doesn't change the reality that it is all mythology and superstition. At best. I don't have to research the existence of every character in "Of Mice and Men" to disregard the existence of them due to the nature of the book, do I? Mohammad certainly has a lot more evidence of his existence than Jesus does, and its still mysticism. If you can prove that there is a god, then whether Jesus was a real person or not becomes relevant. I don't think he was. You can trot out 1000 so-called experts who insist that Jesus was real, it doesn't change a thing. Nobody really questions whether Augustus Caesar was real or not...the evidence is undeniable. I haven't heard too many people questioning the existence of George Washington or Mohammad, either. Just because 1 or 20 or 1000 skeptics of Christianity accept Jesus was a real person doesn't make the dearth of evidence regarding Jesus (or many of the figures in the bible) any more substantial. It was commonly believed for a long time that tomatoes were inedible. They come from a largely poisonous plant, from a poisonous taxonomic family. You could walk down the street, ask 1000 informed people and they would all tell you that tomatoes were inedible. Of course, tomatoes are edible. Consensus, therefore, doesn't alter reality. Thats why one of the groundrules of this thread was we not focus on popular literature and opinions of authors.

1) Maintain a civil manner and tone. This is a friendly forum with a wide variety of people from lots of different places. We will not all agree on issues. Feel free to express yourself, but name calling, personal insults, and baiting will not be tolerated. Profanity is permitted in it's proper context.

I think one or two of those criteria would apply to you calling me lazy. You have no basis to make that assertion. You don't know what I do and don't read. I like Zeitgeist. I agreed with you that its largely false, you're not going to get me to stop liking it, no matter how many other authors you quote. What else do you want?

[momatik]

My apologies if you took it personally Eric. I didn't mean to single you out and call you lazy. I was speaking to everyone. I know that you are a person who often reads scholarly articles and the like, as evident by your comments in threads about smoking research. I know you take things with a grain of salt.

I think you would agree with me when I say that a lot of people have watched Zeitgeist and have accepted it as 100% truth. This is what I was trying to address.

The quotes I posted were not simply directed to you and getting you not to like Zeitgeist. They are directed to everyone. I just want to present the other side of the argument which doesn't get as much "air time" as zeitgeist does.

I can see how you could think that I was addressing things specifically to you, when I look back at my post. Again, for that I apologize.

We all have a tendency to get swept up by what we watch and hear. Our natural response to anything is to accept it first, and ask questions later, myself included.

If you can prove that there is a god, then whether Jesus was a real person or not becomes relevant.

Absolutely. But like Callahan said, Zeitgeists' main argument is that Jesus never existed, when their is evidence to prove otherwise. If one were to acknowledge that evidence, it makes Zeitgeists' position baseless. Edited July 25, 2009 by momatik

[momatik]

It's tough to have this theism-atheism debate. There are so many religions out there.

Even I don't think Christianity is a real religion.

Unfortunately it always boils down to Christianity Vs. Atheism though.

[Sonthert]

I would say the opposite, Christianity is a real religion. Based on mysticism like all the rest. It does give me laffs when a person who believes in the tenets of one religion poo-poos the mysticism of another religion as obviously absurd. I heard somebody, I don't remember whom, who was a Christian and said something like "Everyone knows Greek legends are wrong." or something like that.

Apology accepted.

[momatik]

It's sad when one person is so strongly subscribed to their own belief system that they can say with such conviction that another persons religion or lack thereof is obviously false. And it happens far too often, even if you exclude all the internet 'geniuses' roaming around.

The way I see it, if enough people believe in something, then the only thing obvious is that there is a legitimate reason one would have for believing in it. That of course, doesn't mean it's right. It just means that it isn't "obviously absurd."

[Sonthert]

You know, I was reminded of something tonight. In my opinion:

The lowest form of humanity are those that believe everything they want to based on their opinion and without any factual basis, view other people who disagree with them to be automatically wrong, people who view others as lower than they are or inferior. The extreme cases of these paradigms were tried in Nuremberg, found guilty and hung for the crimes that they committed while acting on these assumptions. It occurs to me this is why blind religion offends me. Its why Nazism and facism are the most odious and disgusting of political systems. Its why I loathe the insolent, the arrogant, the self-righteous, the fanatical, the seeming know-it-alls who can't back up any of their points with a shred of rationale.

This is why I am the man I am. I am filled with a hatred for the superior people of the world that feel that they, their beliefs or their way of life is superior to other people and view other people as animals, lower, stupid or worthless.

Yes, I know that sounds ironic. This thread seemed right to post this and mad props to those who gave their religious beliefs a moment of thought in their lifetimes. If I come off as overly pedantic, forgive me; I seek to practice what I preach.

That is all.

E

[tinyj316]

Then, not so suddenly, a coelacanth...

[kudomonster]

Does God exist, or doesn't he? The correct answer is unknown, because we do not know.
To simply say God exists and to live a life of worshiping something you have never encountered yourself is stupid. I don't mean to be harsh, I know that religion is good for some people and there's even psychological evidence that the human interaction you get through religion is healthy for you. On the flip side, saying that God doesn't exist is stupid as well. We don't know everything out there, because there's no test for reality. That's one of my arguments. Hell, we could all be in a "Matrix"

Another comes from years of psychological studies in which determinism and non-determinism constantly fought, and an existence for both can come from one experiment. I know I'm probably not going to explain this well, but here goes!

We have equations (Chaos theory) to mathematically describe every psychical event. Keep this in mind. Now, we're going to go in a different direction for a while and talk about the human brain. The way our memory works, is we see something, it enters our short term memory, and then eventually goes to our long term memory (Not everything) When we're storing something in our long term memory we do so by synthesizing proteins in the neurons in our brain. That means that our brain should be deterministic, since we're acting on memories that have a physical entity (The proteins and junk I talked about earlier). We should be able to put a human, then, in an experiment, and time and time again get the same results or at least have a reason, based on physical proof, of any deviations.
If we could do that, God cannot possibly exist within the reality we know.

However, when we do these experiments we get both the same result each time, but also different results. My favorite experiment that helps with this mindfuck is one done by Gustav Fechner. In his experiment a man, sitting in a darkened room, would alert the experimenter when he noticed a source of light, in this case those were candles. Basically, Fechner would light the candles, one at a time, and when the man would see the candles (They were in a box, so more than one had to be lit for the man to see them) he would tell Fechner. When Fechner started form zero lit candles and hit X, the man would tell Fechner. The result was the same each time, when he hit X, the man said something. This results in a square curve, with zero deviation. Determination!

However, when Fechner started with 20 candles and put them out one by one, the man didn't always get the same answer. In fact, the result was a bell shaped curve, which represents non-determination. The same experiment yield arguments for both determination and non-determination.

So how does this relate to my beliefs on God? If everything is known, people do the same expected thing every time, there is no freewill (since we're all acting on proteins in our brains) and hence, no soul, and no God. However, not everything is known! There's still a possibility of freewill, a soul, and a God! I'm not saying that if there's freewill there's a God, just that it's possible.

I don't believe in God, but I do believe it's possible for God to exist. Simply because we don't know everything.

[Sonthert]

Nice post!

I agree, there is a possibility that god exists.

That being said, there are a few things I find irrelevant, that is whether they are true or not makes no difference:

1. Whether god exists. This shouldn't change anyone's life or morals. If you are a fucked up person, god ain't gonna help you.
2. Whether reality is qualifiably real. (Your Matrix Paradigm) It reality isn't real, it is all irrelevant to begin with. If reality is real, then any conversation is worthwhile about the nature of reality. So, you can choose to take the first idea, but if you're wrong, then you will suffer for your mistake. If you choose the second choice, there is no loss for being wrong. The downside for believing reality is real and being wrong is much, much smaller than the corresponding downside for the Matrix Paradigm.

In terms of your logic regarding god, I agree, but the point I'm approaching from saying there's no god comes from two sources. It is far more arrogant to contend "I know how the Cosmos, the Earth and life were created. (god)" than it is to contend "I don't know how they were created, but I've ruled out several possibilities. (One of which is god)"

The other one is analogical. I heard a few years ago, another scam artist was selling a machine that produced electricity from plain water. Before that it was a machine that produced gasoline from plain water. Before that, more and more and more senseless claims. One of which was turning water into wine. This is the gist of the religious claims. Claiming the impossible is possible. Claiming Jesus arose from the dead, Mary gave birth as a virgin, Jesus turned water into wine, or that god existed. These are the basis of Christianity. Without them, there is no religion, just alot of stories of Josiah begetting. To believe in one, you have to believe in the possibility of the impossible. You have to believe that the entity named is supernatural so that the impossible can become possible. Who can turn water into wine? Jesus...because he's the son of god. One assumption concatenated on another. All with no proof (outside the bible). Flimsy.

Go back to the first example. Discounting Jesus turning water into wine since he's the son of god, do you believe that I could sell you a machine that turns water into gasoline? First you would have to evaluate either myself or the idea that a machine can turn water into gasoline. Some people, the religious people mostly, would agree that I had a machine that made gasoline from water, because I was personally, above reproach. I was an honest man, I'd never been known to lie, to exaggerate, and I was completely forthright (That is a complement, by the way ). The atheists would start asking questions about how it worked. They would want to know why science had been fooled. They would ask for proof that it worked. The scientists in the crowd would probably laugh and say science has already proven that its impossible and quoted The First Law of Thermodynamics to emphasize their point.

Its easy to say "Nobody can know whether it exists or not." That has no value, though as a statement.

To that, if I could prove that there was a machine that turned water into coal tar or kerosene, it would add much credibility to my claim of making gasoline from water. If I could then show you a working machine that turned water into coal tar, it would add yet more credibility to my claim. So, lacking evidence of my machine that turns water into gasoline, we resort to a hierarchy (ranked from weakest to strongest indirect proof):

1. Does the basis of the claim have similar processes that can be anecdotally described (by me) which would tend to make the basis of the claim more reasonable? I describe a machine that turns water into kerosene, for instance, I might be able to explain how the machine works, what principles it works on and so on. This would add voracity to my claim regarding a machine that turned water into gasoline.

2. Does the basis of the claim have similar processes that can be independently demonstrated to be true by some third party who is impartial? I show the description and pictures of a machine in Popular Engineering that turns water into kerosene...this also adds voracity to my claim of having a machine that turns water into gasoline.

3. Does the basis of the claim have similar processes that can be demonstrated objectively by me to show that the possibility of a machine that turns water into gasoline is possible? I show you a machine that turns water into kerosene and prove that it works...this makes my claim of having a machine that turns water into gasoline far, far more likely since kerosene and gasoline are quite similar. If one can be true, the other is then plausible.

If I could demonstrate that the machine to turn water into gasoline actually worked, that would be direct proof. If you took my machine apart and showed that there was trickery involved, that would prove that my machine was a fake and it would also be direct proof.

So how does god stack up? Religious people can't demonstrate any one of the three. They can't show that supernatural entities exist or even describe them or how they "work". So, a rational person, coming across Eric the magical gasoline chemist, asks me what proof I have that my contrivance works...I give them the same level of information that the religious people offer up, he laughs at me. But, but...I got a book I wrote about it that says it exists.

I agree with your perspective, to be sure. You doubt that it is true, because you lack proof. The problem is, I could claim that I own ten rhinoceroses. Do you believe me? I offer no proof. You doubt that its true...so you doubt I have a machine that turns water into gasoline...thats very safe. It won't get you into too much trouble.

In everybody's spare time, look up a quack named Albert Abrams. In the early part of the 20th century, he claimed to have invented a device that could cure and diagnose disease. Evaluate his claims. I have heard that up to half of all Americans used the practitioners of the Dynomizer (sp?)instead of going to actual doctors. His claims were contentiously decried by a select few (One of which was Scientific American...it was one of their first issues if I remember correctly). Most people just believed that the machines were true and worked. He also wrote a book that says it worked. (1909?)

Same thing for god. You don't need to have proof that someone is flimflamming you to know you're being hustled. The proof is almost never there...for anything ultimately.

It also makes late-19th century and early 20th century medicine look ridiculous (not to mention me having to use spell check to spell ridiculous ). It makes you wonder how much medical care helps and how much it really has to offer when people aren't dropping dead in the streets when using these silly Dynomizers instead of doctors. Even today. The "studies" "demonstrating" second hand smoke is a killer are equally ridiculous. We rely on medical ideas from doctors (That are called epidemiologists) that use a number of unproven assumptions to arrive at a conclusion. (Second Hand Smoke kills). Whereas Clinical Trials actually get real data that can demonstrate (or fail to demonstrate) a connection. We only accept the word of the epidemiologists because the clinical trial doctors wear the same coats and call themselves doctors as well. Show us some clinical data.

kudomonster is clearly asking for some clinical trials for god. I'm saying, whatever. I know how the clinical trials are going to come out. The Christians are relying on the epidemiological data. Since this country is so heavily rooted in religion, thats why smoking bans can continue to propagate...people are believing in things that have no proof.

So, kudomonster, I agree, in a large part with your perspective. The problem is, where's the counterweight to the smoking bans? What about the counterweight to Albert Abrams? Being skeptical is fine, but the people who believe things based on faith can have a field day without anyone to stand up and say "I think you're wrong and I have some evidence to back that up." Going before the masses and saying "Smoking bans are wrong because there's no proof." won't hold water...they already have faith that they're right. They need no proof to believe. This is why I contend that faith-based beliefs are dangerous. It creates a gulf in the brain where people should be asking "Can you prove that my cigarette smoke is dangerous to you?" and allows ministers of faith to fill in the gulf with whatever they choose "second hand smoke kills." The majority of people are rational and will stop believing when presented with opposing proof, even if they're beliefs were based on faith. Some people will continue to believe despite proof. I understand the use of the Dynomizer persisted until the mid-40s. Some people's faith was continued even despite the overwhelming evidence.

[Barnaby]

Not complete scientific proof withstanding, personally I prefer not to eat my food while having to be surrounded in foul ass cigarette smoke.. I don't care if I'm gettting cancer from that or not, its still nasty as shit, and I prefer it not to be around me.. Now, of course, if I go to a place where smoking is the point of the establishment, then bring it..

But that's all for another thread..