Would you believe in God if...

[alzan]

lol, only atheists make the existence of God seem up for debate, when rather, believers are only concerned with understanding God (which is why we have so many different religions).

Its been settled, really -- we're so passed that.

I believe that one day we will get irrefuatable proof, which hasn't come yet.

It's more that some theists can't or won't attempt to understand why atheists don't have a belief in G-d; those theists simply cannot fathom anyone not having a belief system.

As far as having irrefutable proof I doubt it. G-d by it's very nature is (supernatural), apart from our natural world/universe; how could we have proof of something that is beyond our ability to detect or prove?

 

[IronWing]

I believe in God, but I certainly don't understand Him.

Why not? You created him.

 

[IronWing]

"Irrefutable" is the operative term.

The slightest hint of evidence or even the vaguest description of what evidence for a god might look like would be a start.

 

[Exophase]

lol, only atheists make the existence of God seem up for debate, when rather, believers are only concerned with understanding God (which is why we have so many different religions).

There are plenty of people who call themselves agnostic who think God or gods might maybe exist. They could be more interested in debating it than either atheists or theists. While atheists don't reject the possibility of God or gods, they'll generally think that there isn't going to be an accessible body of knowledge that lends much in the way of evidence towards it.

I really don't understand this notion that so long as you believe in something supernatural you share a common foundation of belief with others who believe in something supernatural, except that both subscribe to believing in things with very weak empirical evidence. But different religions exist on totally opposing ends of the worldview spectrum, and can be at least as far apart from each other as they are from having no belief at all.

 

[moonbogg]

It's more that some theists can't or won't attempt to understand why atheists don't have a belief in G-d; those theists simply cannot fathom anyone not having a belief system.

As far as having irrefutable proof I doubt it. G-d by it's very nature is (supernatural), apart from our natural world/universe; how could we have proof of something that is beyond our ability to detect or prove?

Holy shit. This is awesome and I don't have to mention why.

 

[alzan]

As far as the OP no I would not believe in G-d if consciousness were proved to have come before everything else.

I see consciousness as a by-product of the evolution of our brain and thinking process.

 

[thraashman]

I don't believe in a damn thing. There's what hasn't been proven, what has been proven, and then a percentage possibility of existence of that which hasn't been proven. Gods fall under the extremely low percentage possibility section as no evidence exists which lends itself to the likeliness of there being any form of god.

 

[Exophase]

Here's my slapdash take on it: if consciousness is some fundamental part of the universe why need God to make conscious creatures like humans directly? And what would make those creatures special or worth special attention?

Having a God who didn't make humans directly and doesn't see humans as special takes away all the punch behind such a God and any religion surrounding him. A God that's merely behind the start of the universe is only barely interesting from a detached philosophical point of view. Or at least it isn't that interesting to me. Move away from any kind of plan and purpose for life on this planet, intervention in human history, and accommodations for an afterlife and the whole thing kind of loses its point.

 

[Ruptga]

This post brought to you by:

Do you want the D?

 

[moonbogg]

Here's my slapdash take on it: if consciousness is some fundamental part of the universe why need God to make conscious creatures like humans directly? And what would make those creatures special or worth special attention?

Having a God who didn't make humans directly and doesn't see humans as special takes away all the punch behind such a God and any religion surrounding him. Having a God that's merely behind the start of the universe is only barely interesting from a detached philosophical point of view. Or at least it isn't that interesting to me. Move away from any kind of plan and purpose for life on this planet, intervention in human history, and accommodations for an afterlife and the whole thing kind of loses its point.

I wouldn't assume humans were made directly, or even on purpose indirectly. I would assume that "experience" in general is key and not just an evolutionary byproduct in this universe. The fact that it feels like something to be something, would not be an accident but would be foundational.

 

[Retro Rob]

It's more that some theists can't or won't attempt to understand why atheists don't have a belief in G-d; those theists simply cannot fathom anyone not having a belief system.

Sure, I agree that some don't. As far as I am concerned though, I simply accept the fact that there will always be those who don't believe, and that reasons for this vary.

Some see hypocrisy in religion, some see no need for God, some require scientific evidence, some think pro-God arguments are unconvincing, some were raised as atheists...the reasons are as numerous as the stars.

However, I think there is a herd mentality with this too. People don't like being outcasts -- if a view is held in contempt by the intellectual branch of society, then people naturally adopt that view(s) out of fear of being criticized and ostracized. So while I think most atheists views are genuine in general, I think it also helps to have people who are considered intellectual agreeing with you, making it even harder for them to remain objective.

 

[Retro Rob]

There are plenty of people who call themselves agnostic who think God or gods might maybe exist. They could be more interested in debating it than either atheists or theists. While atheists don't reject the possibility of God or gods, they'll generally think that there isn't going to be an accessible body of knowledge that lends much in the way of evidence towards it.

I think this is all semantics...you either believe or you don't, ultimately, because God either exists, or he doesn't.

As far as folks holding out for scientific evidence, I call BS. God would be in another category, so he would be ignored (and rightfully so) by science as far as direct evidence confirming his existence.

This is a category error, and folks are demanding scientific evidence rhetorically, and hypocritically, based on the aforementioned facts.

 

[IronWing]

I think this is all semantics...you either believe or you don't, ultimately, because God either exists, or he doesn't.

No. There is no reason for there to be any connection between a belief or lack of belief in a god and the actual existence of said god.

As far as folks holding out for scientific evidence, I call BS. God would be in another category, so he would be ignored (and rightfully so) by science as far as direct evidence confirming his existence.

This is a category error, and folks are demanding scientific evidence rhetorically, and hypocritically, based on the aforementioned facts.

Says the poster who in this very thread discussed the possibility of "irrefutable proof". Are we going to develop a non-fact based proof for gods?

 

[moonbogg]

As far as folks holding out for scientific evidence, I call BS. God would be in another category, so he would be ignored (and rightfully so) by science as far as direct evidence confirming his existence.

That's why I am interested in consciousness. Its certainly there but so far can't be touched by any empirical method and by its very nature might never be detectable besides experiencing it yourself. That sounds kind of like god to me.

 

[Ruptga]

Stay alive a few more decades, I expect we'll make AI that approach a dog's level of consciousness by then. A few decades past that and we'll probably be closing in on human level intelligence. There is no magic, just things we don't yet understand.

 

[Retro Rob]

No. There is no reason for there to be any connection between a belief or lack of belief in a god and the actual existence of said god.

I didn't say there was. What I was saying was that God either exists or not, regardless of whether or not one believes/disbelieves.

Choose one.

Says the poster who in this very thread discussed the possibility of "irrefutable proof". Are we going to develop a non-fact based proof for gods?

If god(s) exists and show as such, that would be fact, yet, still remain unscientific because of the nature of said god(s). So there is no such thing as "non-fact" proof.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

It is proven that consciousness is a fundamental feature of reality, like space-time, gravity, mass, charge etc? This would mean that consciousness came first and was here from the start, something being seriously considered by people who aren't crackpots in today's scientific studies of consciousness.
Consciousness existing before biological life would go against the materialist world view directly.

Links to non-crackpot scientists who think consciousness is innate to the universe.

 

[IronWing]

If god(s) exists and show as such, that would be fact, yet, still remain unscientific because of the nature of said god(s). So there is no such thing as "non-fact" proof.

This indicates to me a sloppy definition of "god" or a sloppy definition of "fact". A god being demonstrated to exist as a fact but a fact that is impervious to physical detection/measurement would not be established as a fact.

 

[Retro Rob]

That's why I am interested in consciousness. Its certainly there but so far can't be touched by any empirical method and by its very nature might never be detectable besides experiencing it yourself. That sounds kind of like god to me.

Honestly, I'm not too well-versed on the issue of consciousness, but I think this is a good point.

I think its on par with not being able to "see" how I may feel.

 

[Retro Rob]

This indicates to me a sloppy definition of "god" or a sloppy definition of "fact". A god being demonstrated to exist as a fact but a fact that is impervious to physical detection/measurement would not be established as a fact.

Learn to think outside your little "box", then.

 

[moonbogg]

Stay alive a few more decades, I expect we'll make AI that approach a dog's level of consciousness by then. A few decades past that and we'll probably be closing in on human level intelligence. There is no magic, just things we don't yet understand.

That's the thing. No magic is required. People already know there isn't magic involved. Being able to build something that is conscious does not mean that consciousness isn't fundamental. Why would it?

Links to non-crackpot scientists who think consciousness is innate to the universe.

You said "who think" I said "seriously considering". A couple of the main ones are below. Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff have a 20 year-in-the-making theory that says it is fundamental in the way I mentioned.

David Chalmers describes the possibility as one of several "crazy ideas" that he does not discount and is actually leaning toward. There are some others out there and I will not outline their work for you. It is easily googled and found.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction

http://blog.ted.com/2014/03/19/the-hard-problem-of-consciousness-david-chalmers-at-ted2014/

 

[IronWing]

Learn to think outside your little "box", then.

Oh, so you were, once again, using words with your own private meanings that can only be revealed when someone questions your bullshit.

'There's glory for you!'

'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

 

[SlitheryDee]

Learn to think outside your little "box", then.

I don't understand what this even means in the context of Ironwing's post. No matter what box you're thinking in or out of you can't know anything about God that you didn't read somewhere or make up for yourself. You could think about God from now until the end of time and you wouldn't be one iota closer to any kind of truth than when you started.

The only way to know anything is through facts and detectable evidence of some kind. If you're explicitly exempting God from that requirement, you're also tacitly admitting that you don't know anything about him, including whether he exists or not. That's true because all the ways we have of knowing things don't apply to him. If you consider that honestly, you'll see that there was never any good reason to posit his existence in the first place. No evidence for God of any kind = no reason to even imagine a God at all.

 

[Exophase]

I think this is all semantics...you either believe or you don't, ultimately, because God either exists, or he doesn't.

That's like saying you either believe Robin Hood was a real person or you don't, because ultimately he either existed or he didn't.

In reality, you could make some arguments for both. An agnostic may feel the same way about some set of God or gods. I personally don't think that any particularly compelling arguments for religions have been made, but others are free to disagree.

 

[Retro Rob]

I don't understand what this even means in the context of Ironwing's post.

Re-read what I was saying. If God exists, it is "FACT", period. I was ripping his silly argument that God wouldn't be fact even if he showed his existence.

If I am misunderstanding him (which is possible) please, clear it up.

If you're explicitly exempting God from that requirement, you're also tacitly admitting that you don't know anything about him, including whether he exists or not. That's true because all the ways we have of knowing things don't apply to him.

I'm not exempting God from anything...it's simply true, if God is real.

For instance, if you depend on oxygen for your own existence, can you be the creator of oxygen? No, you cannot. However, you if are the creator of oxygen, then you can realistically exists outside the properties required for oxygen to exists, and it won't contradict "fact".

If there is a creator of the universe, then that creator factually exists. But he isn't required to "play by the rules" because he created the rules, so he exists apart from them.

This is perfect logical, though that doesn't make it true.