|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
15th February 2019, 10:33 PM | #121 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
|
I'm saying that the two are actually fully equivalent. If you're not saying that God is impossible, then God IS possible. It IS a dichotomy.
Essentially what you're saying there is that you're not saying "not X", you're saying "X is false". Well, that's nonsense right there. The two are saying the same thing. |
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child |
|
15th February 2019, 11:22 PM | #122 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
|
If by "the two" you mean the options that God is either possible or impossible then that's also exactly what I'm saying. Not saying "God is impossible" does not mean "God is possible" is true however, it merely leaves both possible/impossible options fully equivalent and open.
The only thing I'm saying is false/invalid is the conclusive proposition that asserts "God is possible". It's false/invalid because it hasn't been established that God is actually possible, and it negates the alternative and fully equivalent "God is impossible" option. Once again I'm not sure what you mean by "the two". If you mean the God is either possible or impossible options then they are definitely not the same thing. If you mean something else please explain. I also have no idea what you mean by "not X" and "X is false". |
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths. |
|
16th February 2019, 12:05 AM | #123 |
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
|
I'm not a fan of the "faith is belief in the absence of evidence/proof" club, either, though it is a common, though half-assed, defense among those who just want to excuse believing whatever they feel like believing. While that is faith, that more specifically would seem to qualify as "blind faith." To take a step back, there's generally a good case to be made for rational examples of faith. Well in the past, for example, holding the position that the sun will come up again tomorrow, in a quite predictable manner, even if one doesn't really understand the hows or whys at all, would count just fine as an example of rational faith. Blind faith, on the other hand, when actually referred to as such, is frequently condemned even among the faithful, especially when they are trying to make the argument that their faith is actually rational faith, not blind faith.
|
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon. |
|
16th February 2019, 12:21 AM | #124 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
|
No. First of all, "Belief that is not based on proof" is literally the definition of "faith" in the dictionary. So not being a fan of what the word means, well, doesn't change its meaning anyway. I mean, I'm not a fan of the definition of cat as a mammal, but that doesn't change anything.
Second, it's still not an equivalent situation at all. "Belief that is not based on proof", doesn't mention the proof being a full physical theory of the phenomenon. It doesn't even mention it being deductive proof. Induction is also a proof. So is the specific case of incomplete induction, i.e., where it can't be made equivalent to deductive reasoning. Not the best, but it is proof. So if for the last 5000 years of recorded history, the sun came up every 24 hours, it's fairly good inductive proof that you can expect it to come up tomorrow too. Or if you want to go one peg smarter, you can go probabilistic on its ass. If a million and a half tries produced a positive result, and no negative ones, you can assume that the probability of a positive result is pretty high. At that kind of a sample size, even if you technically can't prove the margin of error to be zero, it is very very small. So even allowing for that margin of error, the probability of the sun coming up tomorrow too is in fact very very close to 1. So, no, that's not believing without proof. It's in fact, believing for a pretty solid reason to believe. |
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child |
|
16th February 2019, 12:32 AM | #125 |
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
|
I'm still getting the impression that the standard that you initially applied is simply inappropriate for debunking that premise, itself. Instead, your standard looks like it's at the level of "What reason would I have to actually accept this?" rather than "This premise is false/unworkable." The latter is what's necessary to actually debunk the premise and thus the argument there, however important the former is when determining what to actually accept as true in practice. With that said, when it comes to negating that premise, either way, I see far more value in disputing the validity of "maximally great being" necessarily equating to a god, even if we're being excessively generous about how vague and subjective "maximally great" is. That alone is enough to invalidate that premise, before even getting to the implication that "god" is <insert arbitrary version of some god(s)>.
|
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon. |
|
16th February 2019, 12:37 AM | #126 |
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
|
|
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon. |
|
16th February 2019, 12:45 AM | #127 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
|
It's the definition that is relevant here. Pretending you can't talk because it didn't include all the irrelevant definitions like marital fidelity, yeah, it don't impress me much. It's like if I were to take my toys and stomp out of a talk about cats, because they don't include the definitions like the unix command, the logo of the Caterpillar corporation, and cat-5 a type of network cable.
Edit: more to the point, if you feel like another (existing) definition is more relevant, please do feel free how is it more relevant, and how does it apply to your example of expecting the sun to rise tomorrow too. |
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child |
|
16th February 2019, 12:55 AM | #128 |
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
|
Except... nope, of course I wasn't citing irrelevant definitions like marital fidelity. It is "a" relevant definition. Not the only one. That is, of course, at the crux of the disagreement that both ynot and I expressed. "Complete trust," for example, without any distinction as to the reason for having such trust, seems to nigh inevitably accompany the definition that you cite.
|
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon. |
|
16th February 2019, 02:54 AM | #129 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
|
Complete trust, ok, let's go with that one. What evidence would such complete trust be based on? It seems to me like it only took one step to be back at the fact that in such cases there is ample reason for such complete trust, and the others just became even dumber. Because they still have no reason for that trust at all, and now it just moved it from trusting without reason or evidence, to COMPLETE trust without reason or evidence.
|
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child |
|
16th February 2019, 05:16 AM | #130 |
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
|
Depends on the case in question.
As I noted before, "blind faith" is generally not looked upon kindly. Generally speaking, of course, because there will always be exceptions in the mess. The caveat there, of course, is that religions like Christianity generally try to represent their faith as rational, not blind, and generally succeed among the people who just want something to grasp onto. I could likely go into more depth there, but... I don't think it would be much more than tangential and I would, of course, continue to be rather critical of the warping and/or rejection of critical thinking. Taking a step back, though, shall we consider an agreement to have been reached? |
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon. |
|
16th February 2019, 08:01 AM | #131 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Mexico
Posts: 3,332
|
The people with beliefs I know just believe. It is like an age of innocence...
Santa brings gifts if the child is good. He will have brought them in the morning when you wake up . Because mommy and daddy Claus prepared to do exactly this unseen for years. The child defending the belief knows it works flawlessly and never questioned why. If another child traps daddy Claus assembling a bike then if he has other ideas the belief is false..... Now he questions because he has learned his 3 year old brother believes anything he is told. That child is now beginning to be a thinking being. Possibly a skeptic despite enjoying his new bike. People go to war over points of faith that neither can prove or disprove. It just is because each believes. People will abandon friends and family because they insulted a dearly held belief. God is bigger and offered more in the mind. Except any outside of the belief see no god offering anything. They see a friend going somewhere to do a ritual with others and returning later strangely satisfied. It might be pure hogwash whatever he did but the changes in his mind make him happy and functional in society. Isn't that enough? |
16th February 2019, 08:37 AM | #132 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
|
8enotto, as it happens, I can tell you exactly what happens when you catch Santa in the act at that age. When I was about two and a half years old, Xmas comes around, and it was grandma pretending to be Santa Claus. (Beats me why her.) So dad brings me to "Santa", and bear in mind that it was the first time I was seeing "Santa", and was freshly woken up in the middle of the night, and still not exactly in the clear as to what is happening and all, so I just reach over from dad's arms and yank the beard off grandma.
You might think, "oh, skeptic reflexes already", except... yeah, right. So she scrambles to put it back on, and I'm like "hey, it's Santa again." That was literally all that happened. I couldn't tell you whether it was just because I was at an age where peek-a-boo still works -- as in, mom literally disappeared if she put her hands in front of her face -- or I was already the kind of little barstard who isn't gonna question someone about to give me a bribe... err... I mean, gift. My memory from that age is a bit fuzzy. But yeah, all that happened was "oh, it's grandma... no, it's Santa again" without the slightest mental hickup. |
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child |
|
16th February 2019, 08:45 AM | #133 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
I don't believe in the supernatural. However, I can assume the role of devil's advocate and give a reason to believe:
If God doesn't exist, everything is permitted and the world is meaningless. I need to believe to give meaning to my life. If I don't believe, the only rational act is suicide. NOTE: I think it's silly to ask the question in a skeptical forum, but anyway.... |
16th February 2019, 09:32 AM | #134 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,351
|
I suppose that if one felt that there is a reality, that is, something(s) real, and, if one felt that the idea of this reality having a source and or sustainer makes sense and has utility - and, if one wanted a point of focus for the display of authentic gratitude and appreciation towards that source, then one could call that God, and believe in that God.
|
16th February 2019, 10:13 AM | #135 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Mexico
Posts: 3,332
|
My son just turned nine. We still have him professing that Santa is real and serious.
It is still harmless at this stage. It won't be when he is 25. I am assured his friends will dispel the fantasy long before that. I count on it. Then he will ask and I will admit the truth. And explain why it was fun for parents and child. And we will still give gifts anyway. It's a bit more difficult with Grandma and her ideas. She has 68 years of unwavering "knowledge" that the church is good and holy. The Pope is an honest and unselfish representative of god and every one before him the same. She will silently hate her fantasies dispelled and distrust those who would destroy the sacred faith of her fathers. Is it worth it if you really love grandma? But if anyone doubts on their own and seeks guidance another direction then they may appreciate your new ideas. It's all about understanding the situation and acting carefully. |
16th February 2019, 11:13 AM | #136 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 24,897
|
I think that is how it mostly works for children: Most things are games, and ... well we can temporarily drop out of the game, and take it up again. Many children, when getting a little older and being told that Santa was really daddy (or whomever), will simply shrug and say ... "I knew that". It was a nice game.
However, grown-up believers are not children ... I assume? Once you start going to church or something, it ain't no game anymore. Hans |
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills. |
|
16th February 2019, 11:28 AM | #137 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
|
Yeah, I was about to say I'm pretty sure I knew it's grandma before the age of nine. Still wasn't going to question anyone who's about to give me a bribe... err... gift
|
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child |
|
16th February 2019, 12:08 PM | #138 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
|
God doesn’t exist for me and other atheists, everything isn’t permitted for us, the world isn’t meaningless for us, we give our own meanings to our lives, we don’t commit suicide any more than theists.
Skeptical doesn’t mean atheist, there are many theists on this forum. |
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths. |
|
16th February 2019, 12:31 PM | #139 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
|
Far too iffy for me to take seriously.
If I believe the universe is a simulation, and if I believe an alien geek called Bob designed, created and runs the simulation, and if I believe the purpose of the simulation is to worship Bob The Creator, and if I believe worshiping Bob The Creator gives me some advantages in the simulation, and if I believe not worshiping Bob The Creator gives me some disadvantages in the simulation, then I might waste my entire life believing in and worshiping Bob The Creator. |
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths. |
|
16th February 2019, 12:51 PM | #140 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
|
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
16th February 2019, 12:53 PM | #141 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
|
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
16th February 2019, 12:57 PM | #142 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
|
|
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths. |
|
16th February 2019, 01:05 PM | #143 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 334
|
they can't. what they can -- you won't take it.
|
16th February 2019, 01:08 PM | #144 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
|
|
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths. |
|
16th February 2019, 02:39 PM | #145 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 24,897
|
|
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills. |
|
16th February 2019, 02:43 PM | #146 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Tiny town west of Brisbane.
Posts: 7,174
|
"Theists – Give me a reason to believe."
Sorry ynot but you've got it all wrong. Believing has nothing to do with reason it has to do with choosing. Theists are very big on the choosing theme. You choose to believe in God, you choose to love God, you choose to fear God and so on. These are all on the positive side and gets you lots of merit. However if you choose to hate God and even worse, choose to not believe in the god you hate, you are in deep ****. If you add choosing to be homosexual to this you are beyond hope. Theism needs the choosing theme. If something other than your choice comes into play, how can you be punished for being or believing what you are or do? Without choosing the religious position collapses like a house of cards. |
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard. |
|
16th February 2019, 02:44 PM | #147 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
|
|
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths. |
|
16th February 2019, 02:49 PM | #148 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
|
|
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths. |
|
16th February 2019, 03:08 PM | #149 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Tiny town west of Brisbane.
Posts: 7,174
|
You get lots of goodies when you die. Choose carefully however because the odds are not good, given the number of religions, and variations within the main categories, you have to choose between. Hard to get a real handle on this, but I get the feeling that even if you decide on different versions of say Baptist, you may be choosing slightly different gods. The different ones being defined by the slightly different hang ups they have. Best of luck all the same. |
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard. |
|
16th February 2019, 03:15 PM | #150 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
|
If the reason to choose to believe in and worship God is that doing so is advantageous, and not doing so is disadvantageous, then that also applies to Bob The Creator. Why God and not Bob?
|
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths. |
|
16th February 2019, 03:25 PM | #151 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
|
|
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths. |
|
16th February 2019, 03:29 PM | #152 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Tiny town west of Brisbane.
Posts: 7,174
|
|
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard. |
|
16th February 2019, 03:38 PM | #153 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
|
|
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths. |
|
16th February 2019, 05:16 PM | #154 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,113
|
Not if you want to stick to the accepted definition. If a thing can be conceived of (ie. it's existence can imagined without violating any physical or logical laws) then by definition it is possible. So while supporting evidence may help to make something possible, it's not required.
Quote:
God has one essential attribute which separates Him from alien geeks creating simulations, He is supernatural. Which is bad news for God, because the Supernatural, by definition, does not exist. For ordinary things that wouldn't be a problem, since something that doesn't exist now could still possibly exist in the future or have existed in the past. But if God exists then He is not supernatural - and therefore not God - whereas if He is supernatural then He does not exist. Therefore God cannot exist. If a thing cannot exist then it is not possible. Note that this proof of God's impossibility does not require any evidence.
Quote:
So being in a Matrix-style simulation is definitely possible. And considering the age and size of the Universe I think we can all agree that an alien species could possibly have developed such simulations, and possibly could have put us in it. In that scenario they could manipulate the simulation to make us think that God exists. Nevertheless it would not be God, because God cannot exist by definition.
Quote:
|
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good. |
|
16th February 2019, 05:54 PM | #155 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,113
|
Why indeed. The difference is that in this scenario Bob does exist (in the simulation), whereas a physical God cannot. I would be far more inclined to 'believe' in an entity which has powers (in the simulation) vs one which doesn't. Even if I know I am in the Matrix and so nothing is 'real', worshipping 'Bob' is still advantageous.
However in the real World things are a bit different. Without a simulation which can be manipulated to produce God-like powers, we are stuck with a physical reality that cannot provide any of the benefits of a 'real' god. So what use is belief in God? One big reason is that it provides an escape from reality, an opportunity to believe in things that don't exist without having to be put in a simulation. This has numerous advantages over being in a simulation, not least being that you can make it whatever you want. IOW, religion is a simulation created in the believer's mind - a simulation that they can control rather than being subject to the whims of an alien megalomaniac. In the Matrix you have to 'believe' in Bob to get anything from Him, even if you don't believe he exists. In the real World no God can give you anything except escapism, but you can get plenty out of other people if they think you're a believer. This is another big advantage of 'God' over 'Bob'. Bob can only give you simulated benefits, whereas people can give you physical goods and services - and you don't even have to actually believe! |
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good. |
|
16th February 2019, 05:59 PM | #156 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
|
Are you claiming that the imagined God of the Bible doesn’t violating any physical or logical laws?
The reason I say comparing gods with simulations is a red-herring analogy is because we know simulations are possible (thought a particular imagined simulation may not be), but we don’t know gods are possible. I'm not prepared to use such a flawed analogy in a debate. That's sillier. If a thing is either impossible or possible then it merely might be possible, and equally it might be impossible. That a thing "might be possible" doesn't mean it "is possible". The odds of a god being either possible or impossible are nowhere near being 50/50. It doesn't become (known) possible until we prove it to be either. Things are either possible or impossible in reality regardless of whether we prove and know they are. |
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths. |
|
16th February 2019, 06:11 PM | #157 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
|
|
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths. |
|
16th February 2019, 07:07 PM | #158 |
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
|
Defining things either into or out of existence is remarkably unconvincing. "Supernatural" only automatically equates to impossible if you engage in fallacious logic. Generally the fallacy for such lies in the conflation of different uses of "natural" and a nonsensical redefinition of supernatural. Your logic here seems to fit that pattern. I'm going to be lazy, either way, and not address the rest of the post.
|
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon. |
|
16th February 2019, 07:11 PM | #159 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 12,511
|
I clicked on the link and realized the ontological "argument" strikes me as exactly backwards. IMO, any God worth believing in would be greater than the greatest being I could imagine. If I could imagine it, it wouldn't be God.
Not sure I am really grasping this argument at all. I did look it up, so I'm better informed than I was 10 minutes ago. |
16th February 2019, 10:28 PM | #160 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 12,511
|
So I watched a couple of videos, of Matt Dillahunty and Seth Andrews. I wasn't familiar with them. I notice both say they used to be fundamentalist Christians. They have reasons not to believe, but I didn't really hear them giving reasons for why they did believe. Andrews said something like, he wasn't given a choice - he was just raised that way. I escaped all that. I never had the disillusionment of realizing that I had been lied to all my life.
My mother didn't believe in cramming religion down our throats (like it had been crammed down hers) and her church did not practice infant baptism. By the time I was old enough to be baptized, I wasn't interested. So I got the courtesy of "choosing" for myself, even though I'm not sure we actually choose. ynot, I think there are reasons to believe, but you might not think they're good reasons. Did you really feel when you started the thread that someone might come up with something you haven't thought of? |
Thread Tools | |
|
|