Your thoughts on God

[dphantom]

What? Does god know what we're going to do or not? Using that definition I'm all knowing as well, since I know you're going to choose from an infinite set of choices.

no because all you know is that one can select from any number (infinite) number of choices but you nor any man knows all of them. That does not make you or anyone else "all knowing".

 

[dphantom]

It might be a personal attack but it illustrates how dangerous religion can be. People think it's a good idea to allow their daughter to be raped because a man raping a man is somehow worse.

so wrong on so many levels. Savatar has explained it quite well for you.

 

[irishScott]

Negative. What Faith is. It is merely the assertion of Truth without evidence.

Precisely, which is something we do as humans every day; because there is no time to process the "evidence" for most of our daily actions. I have "faith" that my GF isn't cheating on me. Granted I also have limited evidence that she's not, but I have no logical "proof" that she's not. Even if said limited evidence didn't exist, I would maintain that faith unless proven otherwise.

Sometimes when I'm working on a problem I have "hunches". I typically have faith in these hunches and more often than not they turn out to be the truth. Yet at the moment of accepting the hunch, I lack evidence.

When I get in my car to drive, I have "faith" that I won't get in a car wreck.

If people sought evidence for everything that they do, no one would get out the door in the morning. The most ardent atheist asserts truth without evidence every day, they just don't apply it to religion or deities.

 

[irishScott]

What? Does god know what we're going to do or not? Using that definition I'm all knowing as well, since I know you're going to choose from an infinite set of choices.

Yes, by the definition of all-knowing, he does. That doesn't mean we don't have free will, that just means his knowledge of us is greater than ours.

If I look at an ant, and I see the ant encounter a tall stick, I know the ant will go around the stick. That's a stark difference from picking up the ant and moving it around the stick, or removing the stick and letting the ant go on its way.

Observation vs intervention.

 

[sandorski]

Precisely, which is something we do as humans every day; because there is no time to process the "evidence" for most of our daily actions. I have "faith" that my GF isn't cheating on me. Granted I also have limited evidence that she's not, but I have no logical "proof" that she's not. Even if said limited evidence didn't exist, I would maintain that faith unless proven otherwise.

Sometimes when I'm working on a problem I have "hunches". I typically have faith in these hunches and more often than not they turn out to be the truth. Yet at the moment of accepting the hunch, I lack evidence.

When I get in my car to drive, I have "faith" that I won't get in a car wreck.

If people sought evidence for everything that they do, no one would get out the door in the morning. The most ardent atheist asserts truth without evidence every day, they just don't apply it to religion or deities.

You might have a point, if there was no Evidence in regards to day to day activities. "Faith" has 0, none, nada Evidence. All those things you bring up have Tons of Evidence. These are not things taken on "Faith".

 

[irishScott]

We must ever strive to be better than we were, to overcome what we are.

True. I never said we should stop trying to answer questions. I'm simply pointing out that human reason has rather stark limits; and always will until we evolve into something that's no longer homo-sapiens.

I don't see how having some variety of faith in the meantime intrinsically damages that goal. Sure it can be used to damage it if used unwisely, but to use a simple example:

There are two scientists who are perfectly identical except for one factor: One's religious and one's an Atheist.

Now there are scientific studies out there that show prayer can lower blood pressure. So say the religious scientist prays daily and thus has noticeably lower blood pressure. He lives a few years longer than the Atheist and contributes more to science.

Faith doesn't burn heathens, people burn heathens.

 

[irishScott]

You might have a point, if there was no Evidence in regards to day to day activities. "Faith" has 0, none, nada Evidence. All those things you bring up have Tons of Evidence. These are not things taken on "Faith".

Correction: they are not taken on faith "alone". But they are not taken on pure evidence either.

Whether or not you'll be in a car crash is largely outside your control no matter how good a driver you are or how good your record is, yet I doubt most here will even give that a thought when they get behind the wheel. That is a form of faith.

No one's crunching the logical numbers or probabilities in the driver's seat. To the driver, it's a given that they're going to make it to their destination. A given without any proof, without any evidence beyond what the driver can directly perceive. A bridge might not be up to code and give out, a deer might run across the road, the person in front might start texting and suddenly stop, and many other variables that cannot be perceived. How can one drive confidently without faith? Even if you draw up statistics, you're only proving that you have faith that you'll end up on the right side of those statistics.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well thought I'd pop in to comment. Not about what's posted because that's unimportant, but to note that a handful of argumentative threads on religion consumes more effort than all other thought on all other topics. Keep up the good work.

 

[irishScott]

As this comes close to what I think is an important point, I will briefly(?) rejoin the discussion.

I agree that “human reason is nowhere close to explaining everything adequately”. And it’s arguably the case that atheists/agnostics find themselves with fewer “adequate” explanations by virtue of the fact that faith-based beliefs are effectively out of bounds. Yet every day we all have to make decisions on how to act based on what explanations we have. Each of us may be pretty confident in some of our explanations, but others fade much more toward being just best guesses. Still, we have to live our lives making decisions as best we can based on what (we think) we know. This is better characterized as a matter of necessity rather than of faith.

I’ll readily concede that it’s possible to sometimes make good choices using faulty reasoning, but suggest that people who make decisions based on more complete and accurate explanations are generally happier with the results.

Our decision-making is where “the rubber meets the road” in determining the usefulness (truth?) of explanations each of us decides to accept.

It seems to me that atheists/agnostics are more comfortable acknowledging the shortcoming of our explanations (i.e. “I don’t know&#8221, and have a hard time understanding why anyone would rather leap to unsubstantiated faith-based (unquestionably true) explanations with their potential for leading those believers into making decisions that work out less well.

My two (Vulcan?) cents…

I'd characterize it as "necessary faith".

As for the complete and accurate explanations, perhaps but there's a point of diminishing returns. A complete and accurate explanation on the functioning of the human body for any given second would be staggeringly long and somewhat beyond human knowledge. Everyone draws a line at some point.

I agree with your last point that logical explanations and acknowledging our shortcomings usually end up with objectively better results, but human life is not so cut-and-dry. Say someone has been brought up in a religious household and prayed since they were 2. Say, for whatever trick of the universe, 90% of their prayers come true, including some of the heavy-hitters (family problems, financial issues, etc). By the logic of producing good outcomes, regardless of whether it's objectively true or false something that produced a 90% success rate is worth hanging onto.

As for happier, I'm sure some Atheists/Agnostics are, but I know plenty who are far more miserable than my religious friends. Sure some of that is likely to be "ignorance is bliss", but to twist Atheist logic on itself for a bit: Atheists are all about acknowledging shortcomings in human reasoning. What if a human shortcoming is that recognizing those shortcomings makes the average person miserable, less productive, and driven to make worse decisions?

Or put another way, who's more honest? The Atheist, or the person who acknowledges their religion is unproven but believes it anyway and is happier/more productive for it? I'd say they're both equally honest overall. On the flip side you have people who will claim that they can logically prove Jesus literally walked on water and you have Atheists who are nothing more than miserable, angsty teenagers raging against religious parents. At the end of the day it's all based on personality type IMHO. Everyone needs faith of some variety, but some need more or different types than others.

For my part, if faith of whatever variety makes someone happy and a positive member of the community, and dislodging that faith would decrease that effect, why dislodge it? Perhaps the objective truth is less meaningful to that person, and might even damage them. In that case convincing this person of that objective truth would be a purely selfish and potentially damaging action.

 

[sandorski]

Correction: they are not taken on faith "alone". But they are not taken on pure evidence either.

Whether or not you'll be in a car crash is largely outside your control no matter how good a driver you are or how good your record is, yet I doubt most here will even give that a thought when they get behind the wheel. That is a form of faith.

No one's crunching the logical numbers or probabilities in the driver's seat. To the driver, it's a given that they're going to make it to their destination. A given without any proof, without any evidence beyond what the driver can directly perceive. A bridge might not be up to code and give out, a deer might run across the road, the person in front might start texting and suddenly stop, and many other variables that cannot be perceived. How can one drive confidently without faith? Even if you draw up statistics, you're only proving that you have faith that you'll end up on the right side of those statistics.

The difference is that there is Evidence. There is none when it comes to gods or other similar claims. Those claims require Faith, not things we see Evidence of everyday.

You are trying to equivocate the unequivacatable.

 

[irishScott]

The difference is that there is Evidence. There is none when it comes to gods or other similar claims. Those claims require Faith, not things we see Evidence of everyday.

You are trying to equivocate the unequivacatable.

I'm not equivocating anything, I'm working in fractions.

You're trying to say that "faith" and "evidence" cannot coexist on the same issue, that "faith" never occurs if even an ounce of "evidence" is attached, which simply isn't true. Evidence is rarely complete, and in everyday life more often than not faith is put into the gaps out of mental necessity.

Hell if you want to scale it up, Atheists have faith in human reasoning and perception. There is no way to objectively substantiate any human reasoning or perception as everything we reason or perceive is done within the finite limits of the human mind. For all our collective knowledge and ability it's extremely likely that in a cosmic sense we're ants staring up a tall tree and thinking it's infinite because we can't see the top. In fact we're likely even more diminutive.

I suppose hypothetically we could find some aliens and get a point of reference outside of human reasoning/perception, but barring that or us evolving beyond our limits, our only sources of verification are subjective to those limits.

Edit: You want to get into mind-bending territory, there is no way to substantiate the lack of substantiation of human thought. Philosophers have been puzzling over this stuff for thousands of years.

 

[sandorski]

I'm not equivocating anything, I'm working in fractions.

You're trying to say that "faith" and "evidence" cannot coexist on the same issue, that "faith" never occurs if even an ounce of "evidence" is attached, which simply isn't true. Evidence is rarely complete, and in everyday life more often than not faith is put into the gaps out of mental necessity.

Hell if you want to scale it up, Atheists have faith in human reasoning and perception. There is no way to objectively substantiate any human reasoning or perception as everything we reason or perceive is done within the finite limits of the human mind. For all our collective knowledge and ability it's extremely likely that in a cosmic sense we're ants staring up a tall tree and thinking it's infinite because we can't see the top. In fact we're likely even more diminutive.

I suppose hypothetically we could find some aliens and get a point of reference outside of human reasoning/perception, but barring that or us evolving beyond our limits, our only sources of verification are subjective to those limits.

Edit: You want to get into mind-bending territory, there is no way to substantiate the lack of substantiation of human thought. Philosophers have been puzzling over this stuff for thousands of years.

You are equivocating. Daily things have Evidence, gods do not. Faith is required to believe in gods. It is not required to do daily tasks.

Human Reasoning and perception also have Evidence of existing. If they did not, we could not even be having this conversation.

 

[dphantom]

You are equivocating. Daily things have Evidence, gods do not. Faith is required to believe in gods. It is not required to do daily tasks.

Human Reasoning and perception also have Evidence of existing. If they did not, we could not even be having this conversation.

We are more though than just what it takes to do daily tasks. We know there is something more than our physical self and we have striven over thousands of years to describe what that "more" may be.

I happen to have faith in the Abrahamic religions, Christianity specifically, and evangelical to be more specific. Can I prove scientifically God exists. Not to your standard of measureable proof as God is not measurable, cannot be weighed, else God would not be the infinite being he is. So I have to have faith that He exists beyond any "proof" you or other atheists would accept.

I can accept the atheist point of view, simply do not agree with it. There are many philosophical arguments for the existence of God. But if you are looking for a number to put on paper to point to and say "Eureka, I have found God", I am afraid that will never happen.

Faith is wonderful. Faith in God indescribable. To get there though requires us to let go of our idea that we - man - is supreme and realize we are not.

 

[irishScott]

You are equivocating. Daily things have Evidence, gods do not. Faith is required to believe in gods. It is not required to do daily tasks.

Human Reasoning and perception also have Evidence of existing. If they did not, we could not even be having this conversation.

So what do you call it when you take an action but don't have time to examine or even subconsciously acknowledge the complete "evidence" for that action? I'm curious, because you clearly don't call it faith, yet the definitions would seem to match.

I think you're blending "faith" and "religion" a little too much. "Faith" can be and often is completely independent of Gods or anything resembling Gods. Tell me, do you have complete knowledge of the future? Do you know, as in you could summarize a pure logical "true" that you're going to be alive at the end of today? Sure you have some evidence, perhaps substantial evidence, but you can't possibly have complete evidence unless you've invented and refined psychohistory beyond what even Hari Seldon and 1000 years of his followers could do.

Now perhaps the evidence you have is enough to personally satisfy you, and that's great. But I bet if someone asked you on any given day, "are you going to be alive tomorrow?" your response would be "yeah..." not "I don't know", even though the latter is more objectively accurate. You answer the former out of natural faith. Faith born of incomplete evidence perhaps, but faith nonetheless.

There are many forms of faith beyond the religious variety, and they permeate the entire human condition. If they didn't we'd be too smart to care or non-sentient.

 

[irishScott]

We are more though than just what it takes to do daily tasks. We know there is something more than our physical self and we have striven over thousands of years to describe what that "more" may be.

I happen to have faith in the Abrahamic religions, Christianity specifically, and evangelical to be more specific. Can I prove scientifically God exists. Not to your standard of measureable proof as God is not measurable, cannot be weighed, else God would not be the infinite being he is. So I have to have faith that He exists beyond any "proof" you or other atheists would accept.

I can accept the atheist point of view, simply do not agree with it. There are many philosophical arguments for the existence of God. But if you are looking for a number to put on paper to point to and say "Eureka, I have found God", I am afraid that will never happen.

Faith is wonderful. Faith in God indescribable. To get there though requires us to let go of our idea that we - man - is supreme and realize we are not.

A good starting point is to think of how inferior we'll be even 1000 years from now. There's been a lot of shitting on religion in this thread that would have gotten the posters executed 1000 years ago in many parts of the world. Nowadays we faceplam at such primitive beliefs.

I wonder if 1000 years from now some anthropologist will dig up this discussion from some ancient computer archive and faceplam at each and every one of us.

 

[sandorski]

We are more though than just what it takes to do daily tasks. We know there is something more than our physical self and we have striven over thousands of years to describe what that "more" may be.

I happen to have faith in the Abrahamic religions, Christianity specifically, and evangelical to be more specific. Can I prove scientifically God exists. Not to your standard of measureable proof as God is not measurable, cannot be weighed, else God would not be the infinite being he is. So I have to have faith that He exists beyond any "proof" you or other atheists would accept.

I can accept the atheist point of view, simply do not agree with it. There are many philosophical arguments for the existence of God. But if you are looking for a number to put on paper to point to and say "Eureka, I have found God", I am afraid that will never happen.

Faith is wonderful. Faith in God indescribable. To get there though requires us to let go of our idea that we - man - is supreme and realize we are not.

That's the thing though, we do not Know that there is something more. However, many Believe there is something more. They Believe these things from a position of Faith.

I do not ask for Proof, I ask for Evidence. No one ever offers any. Most of the Philosophical arguments for gods, can be made to argue for practically anything. The use of these arguments come and go like Fashion. Mainly because they are horribly flawed and when exposed to scrutiny their flaws make them ineffective.

 

[sandorski]

So what do you call it when you take an action but don't have time to examine or even subconsciously acknowledge the complete "evidence" for that action? I'm curious, because you clearly don't call it faith, yet the definitions would seem to match.

I think you're blending "faith" and "religion" a little too much. "Faith" can be and often is completely independent of Gods or anything resembling Gods. Tell me, do you have complete knowledge of the future? Do you know, as in you could summarize a pure logical "true" that you're going to be alive at the end of today? Sure you have some evidence, perhaps substantial evidence, but you can't possibly have complete evidence unless you've invented and refined psychohistory beyond what even Hari Seldon and 1000 years of his followers could do.

Now perhaps the evidence you have is enough to personally satisfy you, and that's great. But I bet if someone asked you on any given day, "are you going to be alive tomorrow?" your response would be "yeah..." not "I don't know", even though the latter is more objectively accurate. You answer the former out of natural faith. Faith born of incomplete evidence perhaps, but faith nonetheless.

There are many forms of faith beyond the religious variety, and they permeate the entire human condition. If they didn't we'd be too smart to care or non-sentient.

There is no "complete" anything. It is unnecessary. How about just anything when it comes to gods?

I do things from a position of Knowledge, that being what is demonstrably true. I may not have "complete" understanding of what will happen when I get into a car(for eg), but it does not require Faith to get into that car and to use it as I have done repeatedly before. I have sufficient evidence to make that decision without fretting about it.

Again, you are equivocating something for which there is zero evidence for, with something for which there is daily evidence for. Do you not see the difference between these 2 things?

You have no more evidence for your god, than you do for Krishna, Zeus, or the FSM. The only difference is that you have Faith in your god and not those other gods.

 

[Retro Rob]

That's the thing though, we do not Know that there is something more. However, many Believe there is something more. They Believe these things from a position of Faith.

I do not ask for Proof, I ask for Evidence. No one ever offers any. Most of the Philosophical arguments for gods, can be made to argue for practically anything. The use of these arguments come and go like Fashion. Mainly because they are horribly flawed and when exposed to scrutiny their flaws make them ineffective.

DSF made a very good point earlier in the thread about this very thing. No, it's not that no one has shown you evidence...its the fact that you think you have an infallible position, with your back against a wall, by simply rejecting all arguments that aren't "sufficient" for you.

We rests our belief in a God on substantial evidence -- the fact that we're here, the fact that we're wired to believe in a greater good/Creator...that can be circumstantial evidence at the least.

If God (or if you want to call it the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I certainly find that amusing) never existed, then why are we born with the capacity, and requirement at times, to look to Him?

As far as we know, there has always, ALWAYS been God or gods in the minds of humans.

How do you know we weren't deliberately created with this inherent capacity?

 

[sandorski]

DSF made a very good point earlier in the thread about this very thing. No, it's not that no one has shown you evidence...its the fact that you think you have an infallible position, with your back against a wall, by simply rejecting all arguments that aren't "sufficient" for you.

We rests our belief in a God on substantial evidence -- the fact that we're here, the fact that we're wired to believe in a greater good/Creator...that can be circumstantial evidence at the least.

If God (or if you want to call it the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I certainly find that amusing) never existed, then why are we born with the capacity, and requirement at times, to look to Him?

As far as we know, there has always, ALWAYS been God or gods in the minds of humans.

How do you know we weren't deliberately created with this inherent capacity?

I do not think that my position is infallible. However, what you offer as evidence is not evidence. It is merely assertion and attributing things to your particular version of the supernatural . If what you say was true, then there would be only one Theism and it would have existed in a consistent manner from the beginning of written history and even prior to that. These beliefs come and go, they change, people go from one to another. If some god had put it into our Minds, it is too flawed to be reliable in the first place.

It is remarkable that you can even make this argument when people are so given to believe with certainty so many false things. Like UFO abductees, New Agers with their crystals and other odd beliefs, all sorts of Conspiracy Theorists, and all those who believed in the 10s of thousands of other god/spirits/ancestors throughout the ages. All these things should make you question whether your Faith is correct as Certainty is not the same thing as Knowledge or Evidence of what is true.

 

[dphantom]

A good starting point is to think of how inferior we'll be even 1000 years from now. There's been a lot of shitting on religion in this thread that would have gotten the posters executed 1000 years ago in many parts of the world. Nowadays we faceplam at such primitive beliefs.

I wonder if 1000 years from now some anthropologist will dig up this discussion from some ancient computer archive and faceplam at each and every one of us.

lol probably

 

[dphantom]

There is no "complete" anything. It is unnecessary. How about just anything when it comes to gods?

I do things from a position of Knowledge, that being what is demonstrably true. I may not have "complete" understanding of what will happen when I get into a car(for eg), but it does not require Faith to get into that car and to use it as I have done repeatedly before. I have sufficient evidence to make that decision without fretting about it.

Again, you are equivocating something for which there is zero evidence for, with something for which there is daily evidence for. Do you not see the difference between these 2 things?

You have no more evidence for your god, than you do for Krishna, Zeus, or the FSM. The only difference is that you have Faith in your god and not those other gods.

Life without faith or life without reason - both a very limited existence. Faith and reason are partners. I cannot imagine not having both in my life. Reason for the things I can see, touch, measure and faith that there is something larger than me in this universe as we know it today.

 

[Retro Rob]

If what you say was true, then there would be only one Theism and it would have existed in a consistent manner from the beginning of written history and even prior to that.

This is a fallacy. Humans come in a variety of "flavors", that's why belief in God is as diverse as opinions on who makes the best car.

These beliefs come and go, they change, people go from one to another. If some god had put it into our Minds, it is too flawed to be reliable in the first place.

The belief in a greater good still remains, though, no matter who/what that is attributed too. That was my entire point.

It is remarkable that you can even make this argument when people are so given to believe with certainty so many false things. Like UFO abductees, New Agers with their crystals and other odd beliefs, all sorts of Conspiracy Theorists, and all those who believed in the 10s of thousands of other god/spirits/ancestors throughout the ages. All these things should make you question whether your Faith is correct as Certainty is not the same thing as Knowledge or Evidence of what is true.

Good, but we're not talking about UFO's, New Agers, etc...we're talking about why we seem to have an inherent capacity to believe in a greater good.

You're committing another fallacy here by saying that just because there are many versions of god, NONE of them are true, or likely not true.

How many ways can you think of to kill someone? Does that mean that because of the sheer diversity of opinions on that matter, all of them are potentially ineffective?

And I've questioned my faith, and answered them.

 

[disappoint]

I wonder if 1000 years from now some anthropologist will dig up this discussion from some ancient computer archive and faceplam at each and every one of us.

Why would he? Wouldn't he understand the limitations we faced? If he facepalms at anything it might be someone trying to guess what someone 1000 years from now would think.

 

[disappoint]

Reason for the things I can see, touch, measure and faith that there is something larger than me in this universe as we know it today.

Like an elephant? An elephant is something larger than you in the universe as we know it today. Of that we can be sure. It's just not the big elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about.

 

[JD50]

Yes, by the definition of all-knowing, he does. That doesn't mean we don't have free will, that just means his knowledge of us is greater than ours.

If I look at an ant, and I see the ant encounter a tall stick, I know the ant will go around the stick. That's a stark difference from picking up the ant and moving it around the stick, or removing the stick and letting the ant go on its way.

Observation vs intervention.

Well, that analogy makes no sense whatsoever.

If god knows exactly what we're going to do, then we don't a have a choice but to do exactly that. If we choose to do something different, then god didn't know what we were going to do.