Elements the Game Forum - Free Online Fantasy Card Game
Other Topics => Off-Topic Discussions => Religion => Topic started by: ratcharmer on July 17, 2010, 09:06:24 pm
-
Hello everyone,
This is probably going to be one of my more argumentative posts in this section.
Basically the reason I'm posting this is that in any discussion about religion you tend to see certain arguments (or types of arguments) over and over again, yet giving them the thorough response they deserve would drag the thread you encountered them in off-topic.
You can argue either in favor of or against any argument you post here, but try to stick to ones you've seen somewhere before. Otherwise it's all just straw-men
When/if you respond to this thread I will ask a couple things of you:
1) BE POLITE. Heated arguments only fuel animosity, they don't get us anywhere.
2) Be clear: explain which argument you're referring to, and try to explain your points clearly. I'm not going to be a grammar nazi, but if I can't understand you I can't address your concern. If you bring up a new argument, give it a title, and underline the title. Use the titles of arguments when referring back to them.
3)Try to use sources if you can. See my signature for a discussing on why citations are important. Be as detailed as possible.
That being said I'll list a couple to start things off:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burden of proof arguments
I've seen both theists and atheists use variations on this, and *gasp* I even used it myself before I knew better.
Essentially the person making the argument makes the claim that the other side must prove their case, and that their own side should be considered true by default unless it is conclusively proven otherwise.
In most cases this argument comes down to pure semantics, and there's nothing solid behind it. Usually it takes the form of something kludged together from "innocent until proven guilty" and academic debates over historical events. Occasionally people mix in elements of scientific proof into this.
Scientific proof in this case is unreasonable-unless someone designs an experiment that can conclusively prove things one way or the other all science can give us is that there are conflicting theories and no way to test between them.
Innocent until proven guilty is a convention used by many court systems, and it's used for a reason: namely, that it's generally better to let a few people get away with breaking the law then it is to allow the government to simply arrest anyone they like on whatever charges they like.
Historical proof is the closest to what we're trying to establish in a religious debate, and generally precedence is given to the older theory since it was closer to the events. But the problem here is that both theism and atheism are ancient. In fact, I'm fairly confident that they both predate recorded history.
Basically, to my knowledge "burden of proof" with regards to the existence of God has never been established, and there is no logical reason for it to go one way or another. There are many who would have you think otherwise though.
This argument does apply in the following cases:
a. If you are debating how/if a relevant historical event took place, the older record generally takes precedence.
b. If someone is accusing a person or group of a wrong doing burden of proof is generally placed on the accuser
Be careful of "gray areas" between these two: If you're arguing the crusades never happened the burden is on you for historical reasons, but if you're arguing the crusades were the fault of the church in Europe then you must also face the burden of proof, since you're making an accusation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It sounds ridiculous
I think it was iampostal who summarized Christianity as "a cosmic jewish zombie who is his own father" or something similar.
As a rebuttal, allow me to offer the following statements:
1) If something is small enough, it can move from one place to another without crossing the space in between
2) You age slower if you're moving really fast
3) Everything is made of particles, but the particles are also waves
4) Most of the universe is made of invisible stuff
Those sound pretty ridiculous, right? But what I just described was:
1) Quantum Teleportation
2) Relativity
3) Particle/Wave Duality
4) Dark Matter
No, my interpretations are not exactly accurate to the theories, but "a cosmic jewish zombie who is his own father" isn't an accurate description of Christianity either. The simple fact is that there are many things in this world that sound ridiculous at first glance, but have been proven true.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historical contradictions
On occasion people try to disprove a religious belief by pointing out a discrepancy between a religious text and other documentation of the events, saying that this proves the religious text is untrue.
First off, I'm not a fundamentalist, this means I don't ascribe to a literal interpretation of every sentence in the Bible. Even if you could somehow conclusively prove that Pharoh and Moses never actually met, that doesn't prove anything to me, beyond that Pharoh and Moses never met.
Secondly, I want you to do an experiment. Pick 5 to 10 of your coworkers/classmates. Pull each of them aside individually (so they can't check their stories versus one another) and ask each them to describe the same event from last week in as much detail as they can. An episonde of a TV show is a good choice for an event.
When you compare your friends accounts of the TV show you'll note that they don't match up very well.
In courts of law it is actually often taken as a sign someones lying if there aren't some discrepancies between multiple accounts of the same event, as this almost surely means the people being questioned have compared their stories to make sure they aren't contradicting one another.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Invisible Pink Unicorn
I borrowed the title for this one from Scaredgirl, and I hope that's okay.
The basic argument goes something like this: I can't see/hear/feel God, and God can't be verified independently . . . so I can make up any wacky thing I like, call it God, and there's nothing anyone can say do against that.
This is most often used when pointing out that a lot of religious beliefs are structured such that they can't be easily disproven, and that similar arguments could support some very strange things. It's also used to try to make theological discussions seem silly by arguing that people are spending time debating characteristics of an entity they cannot perceive, and haven't even established if it exists.
My initial response goes something like this: I'm sorry you can't see the unicorn, but the rest of us can.
That's sort of a silly way to phrase it, but in all seriousness a great many believers from a great many different faiths will tell you stories of the multitude of ways they have directly experienced God or gods. It's always sort of hard to talk about this with someone who hasn't experienced it. Almost like trying to describe your favorite painting to a bind person, it's difficult to find a basis to start from. If anyone really wants to hear my own accounts let me know and I'll PM you some of the stories.
As to the unicorn analogy, it's somewhat misleading. If someone approached me on the street and told me an invisible pink unicorn was following me, my reaction would probably be to step back out of their reach, in case they decided I was made of delicious candy and tried to eat me.
But one person approaching you on the street is not accurate to the situation. Consider this:
You take a random sample of 100 people from around the globe. They aren't given a chance to speak to each other before speaking to you, and each of them is given a lie detector test, so your 90% certain that they, at least, believe what they're telling you.
Out of that 100 people:
60 tell you there's an invisible pink unicorn following you
10 say it's an invisible purple unicorn
10 say it's an invisible pink pegasus
1 says it's an invisible blue rhinocerous
10 say they aren't sure if there's an invisible quadruped following you or not
9 say there is no invisible quadruped
Maybe this wouldn't convince me to go buy the unicorn a saddle, but it certainly isn't a strong argument against invisible unicorns.
Those figures roughly follow statistics taken from the pew test and a few other sources about worldwide belief in God. It's admittedly very difficult to find trustworthy data on this subject, and most sources disagree at least a little.
And as Artois points out here http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,6523.0.html there are some rather remarkable similarities between many religions (hence unicorn vs. pegasus and not unicorn vs. salamander or goldfish). The resurrection motif is just one of many examples.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there's a specific argument you would like me to look at or if you would like to respond to one of my responses, please post away.
-
Sir, I just felt I had to post, after you had put in so much effort, and nobody seemed inclined to care!
It is rare to find well-balanced, coherent, structured thought on internet forums. In my opinion, this is an example of said thought, and I appreciate it.
Well done, you. Give yourself a sticker.
-
You touched on it a little bit with your Pink Unicorn argument, but I think this deserves its own area.
Similar Ideas = Copying = All are wrong
What Im talking about.
1)I see many people saying (and not just in this forum, but on real life as well) that a lot of ideas are the same. So they must have copied each other.
2)Because they are all similar, they must all be wrong.
1 thing I noticed a lot was pointing out that a lot of religions have great similarities. This doesnt mean that they copied though. I'll use elements as an example. Look at the deck ideas and the card ideas. Both of those sections have a lot of posts that are similar. You may find cards that do pretty much the same thing, only from separate elements, or they may be from the same element and do pretty much the same thing. Especially when you look at fg killing decks, you see a lot of similarities (of course you have a few that are completely different). This doesnt mean that the person looked at the deck, modified it a bit, and posted it as their own though. The ideas could very well be independent.
This brings me to the next point. an argument I occasionally see is that since they are all similar, they must all be wrong. Lets take a look at this through the elements spectrum again. There are a ton of entropybows and timebows. Does that mean none of them work though? No. Actually, all of them probably work to an extent. Now, I know this logic is flawed in the fact that with religion, not all of them can be right, but please try to understand what im trying to say. A better example would be with evolution. There have been a lot of ways evolution has been explained in the past. Just because people have a different way of explaining how it happens, it doesnt mean that all of them are wrong, and that evolution doesnt exist. Just like how people have different views of God. That doesnt mean that all the views are wrong, and that God doesnt exist.
-
@Hamish: Hey thanks! I am now the proud owner of a sticker.
I'm honestly not that concerned about the lack of early response to this thread, it was made mostly as a go-to for when a side debate came up in one of the other threads that could drag the initial thread off-topic. If there aren't many posts here it could mean a number of things, anywhere from the people the listed debates are relevant to haven't stumbled across it yet, to people are have read it and want to respond, but are still thinking through their responses.
If people are taking their time to respond so they can have a well thought out response then, bravo! I'd rather they took their time and gave a thoughtful response then a knee-jerk reaction.
The length of the first post probably scared some people off as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to Similar Ideas = Copying = All are wrong:
Yeah, this does deserve it's own topic. Well said and well reasoned.
Perhaps a closer analogy than elements decks would be a math test. Most student's work will look similar to one another, and many will have the same answer, but this doesn't mean that they all copied each other. This means that there is a generally accepted correct way to go about solving that problem. Many students will arrive at the same answer because that is the correct answer, and even those that get a problem wrong will usually have taken a similar approach to trying to solving it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And now to post yet another new argument:
Omnipotence Paradoxes
Okay, I've seen this a lot with people trying to argue that an omnipotent being could not exist. The basic form of the argument comes down to "God is defined as omnipotent, but God couldn't do X, therefore either God doesn't exist or He isn't omnipotent."
As an example, One of the first forms I encountered was "Could God build something even HE couldn't destroy?" The claim was that either a) God couldn't build it or b) He couldn't destroy it.
The problem here is that omnipotence means God can do anything, not just things that make logical sense. So yes, God could microwave a burrito so hot that not even He couldn't eat it--and then He could eat it.
There are several things that allow for the creation of a paradox, omnipotence is one of them.
-
You take a random sample of 100 people from around the globe. They aren't given a chance to speak to each other before speaking to you, and each of them is given a lie detector test, so your 90% certain that they, at least, believe what they're telling you.
Out of that 100 people:
60 tell you there's an invisible pink unicorn following you
10 say it's an invisible purple unicorn
10 say it's an invisible pink pegasus
1 says it's an invisible blue rhinocerous
10 say they aren't sure if there's an invisible quadruped following you or not
9 say there is no invisible quadruped
Maybe this would convince me to go buy the unicorn a saddle, but it certainly isn't a strong argument against invisible unicorns.
Those figures roughly follow statistics taken from the pew test and a few other sources about worldwide belief in God. It's admittedly very difficult to find trustworthy data on this subject, and most sources disagree at least a little.
And as Artois points out here http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,6523.0.html there are some rather remarkable similarities between many religions (hence unicorn vs. pegasus and not unicorn vs. salamander or goldfish). The resurrection motif is just one of many examples.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there's a specific argument you would like me to look at or if you would like to respond to one of my responses, please post away.
Are you serious about buying the saddle?
What that study would tell me is that 81% of people have been lied to as part of their upbringing and have never bothered to face reality or were too scared to.
-
Are you serious about buying the saddle?
What that study would tell me is that 81% of people have been lied to as part of their upbringing and have never bothered to face reality or were too scared to.
The bit about the saddle is actually a typo, it was meant to say wouldn't. Sorry about that. I corrected the typo in the first post.
(after all, it might really be a rhinoceros, and then wouldn't I look silly)
I would say it isn't lying if the parents genuinely believe what they're teaching their kids. Otherwise you get into all kinds of "how can I teach someone things I don't know myself" situations.
Keep in mind to that each of these is a response to a specific argument, not a general blanket statement.
-
I would say it isn't lying if the parents genuinely believe what they're teaching their kids. Otherwise you get into all kinds of "how can I teach someone things I don't know myself" situations.
Perhaps I was delving a little too much into the analogy. If I were presented with such a study I would think I was being set up because I never heard of an actual Pink Unicorn religion.
But that portion of the rebuttal is not necessary. I think you would agree that it doesn't matter how many people believe in something--that belief does not make something true or false.
You say in response to the general "invisible pink unicorn" argument that you have directly experienced something that has given you faith in whatever belief you have. For someone who has never had such an experience, would you say that they could never rationally hold the same beliefs?
Thank you for your response.
-
I just have a few things to add on:
Omnipotence Paradox
Yes, that's all well and good, but what if we define omnipotence not as being able to do ANYTHING (like Descartes said), but being able to do anything possible (like Aquinas said), which is the widely believed definition today.
Well, then there is still no trouble with that burrito so hot that God couldn't eat it. Using the Descartes definition, you can safely say yes, like you've already explained. And using the Aquinas definition, you can safely say no, because it's impossible for God to create a burrito so hot he can't eat it.
Similar Ideas = Copying = All are wrong
What you all said is true as well, but there's another way to look at it:
While some sections may seem copied (resurrection) it is so very different in other ways that if looked at as a whole it doesn't seem copied as well. It's like shuffling two decks of cards, and then claiming one copied the other because they both have an ace on top of the deck. Who cares about the rest of the deck?
Also of note is that many similarities are only similarities if you just look at the actions and not at any thing else like context (Greek gods fathering children with human women = virgin birth like God with Mary). When looked at superficially, they seem equivalent, but when you delve deeper into intentions behind them, and the basic makeup of Greek gods, they are entirely different. Not to mention, some similarities people claim are simply dead wrong and Horus didn't really become resurrected :).
-
Replying to discussion of Invisible Pink Unicorn
Yes, it is possible for the majority of the human race to be wrong, but it is somewhat more difficult for them to be wrong about whether or not they experienced something.
It would be somewhat more difficult to maintain faith without ever experiencing the divine, but I would argue it's still possible to rationally come to the conclusion God exists without direct evidence.
I offer the following analogy:
My wife has a friend named Julia. I have never met Julia, but I have no doubt that she exists. If I ask different people about her I will get different responses, including "who?" from people who haven't heard of her. It is unlikely that any two people who have met Julia would give exactly the same account. It is always possible that I will meet Julia at some point in the future, but there is no way to guarantee that I will. Even if I knocked on her door, she might not be home.
However, if I do meet Julia, there can only be 2 possible truths to the situation 1) Julia is real 2) I'm schizophrenic. Given that I can also conclude that if I haven't met her but my wife says she has that either 1) Julia is real 2) my wife is crazy or 3) my wife is lying to me.
Considering the possibility that someone is crazy is generally not useful unless there is substantial supporting evidence, outside of the initial claim. The possibility of a liar is is quite possible in the case of an individual, but if you have a large population that all says the same thing this possibility becomes much more remote, almost to the point of non-existence.
Thus I am left with 2 possibilities concerning God 1) God exists, at least in some form or 2) half the human race has the same mental illness. Number 2 is actually possible, though not very reassuring, generally I fall back on other arguments when discussing this possibility.
Granted, the analogy isn't perfect, since I already know that similar entities to Julia already exist (namely, people) but hopefully the analogy is good enough to get the point across.
I could however, easily understand how someone could also come to the opposite conclusion under some circumstances, particularly if they either haven't had much contact with religious persons or have had experience with dishonest or just plain loony religious figures, which is sadly not uncommon.
-
Replying to discussion of Invisible Pink Unicorn
Yes, it is possible for the majority of the human race to be wrong, but it is somewhat more difficult for them to be wrong about whether or not they experienced something.
It would be somewhat more difficult to maintain faith without ever experiencing the divine, but I would argue it's still possible to rationally come to the conclusion God exists without direct evidence.
I offer the following analogy:
My wife has a friend named Julia. I have never met Julia, but I have no doubt that she exists. If I ask different people about her I will get different responses, including "who?" from people who haven't heard of her. It is unlikely that any two people who have met Julia would give exactly the same account. It is always possible that I will meet Julia at some point in the future, but there is no way to guarantee that I will. Even if I knocked on her door, she might not be home.
However, if I do meet Julia, there can only be 2 possible truths to the situation 1) Julia is real 2) I'm schizophrenic. Given that I can also conclude that if I haven't met her but my wife says she has that either 1) Julia is real 2) my wife is crazy or 3) my wife is lying to me.
Considering the possibility that someone is crazy is generally not useful unless there is substantial supporting evidence, outside of the initial claim. The possibility of a liar is is quite possible in the case of an individual, but if you have a large population that all says the same thing this possibility becomes much more remote, almost to the point of non-existence.
Whether an individual exists, or a certain trivia question is true is, of course, wholly different than the "big questions". The truth of Julia's existence is not going to weigh in on how you should act (morals) or how you conceive of the universe working. If it's your wife's imaginary friend and you find out, of course, you would change how you would act with your wife and be emotionally shocked, but if your local grocery clerk talked about imaginary Julia you may just humor her so you can be on your way. Whether or not Liverpool is the capitol of the UK will have no bearing on how I live my life, just on where I may get my facts from.
Religion on the other hand dictates one's morals and one's perspective on life. Accepting religious explanations at face value will narrow one's understanding of reality and keep an individual under the control of religious leaders.
Of course, this may not apply to you or anyone reading. A lot of people draw a line between religion and spirituality and don't base their beliefs on tradition or culture.
My point is teaching someone (especially a child) that an invisible pink unicorn exists because the vast majority of society has the same beliefs is not the right thing to do. The "big questions" deserve more critical thought.
Thus I am left with 2 possibilities concerning God 1) God exists, at least in some form or 2) half the human race has the same mental illness. Number 2 is actually possible, though not very reassuring, generally I fall back on other arguments when discussing this possibility.
Whether its comforting or not, the human race has had a series of mental illnesses-war, slavery, tyrannical governments, genocide, child abuse, addiction, starvation, etc. Luckily, with technology, reason, and discourse most of us don't have to live with those illnesses. I consider all those disasters as resulting from delusions, so I don't consider it a far stretch for humanity to still be lost in other mental traps, myself not excluded.
-
Invisible Pink Unicorn
For the lion's share of your post I'm in complete 100% agreement with you Smuglapse. In some ways I did read a little to far into things in that I tried to expand what was initially meant as a response to a very specific argument into a far-reaching statement.
The other thing, that in review I appear to have neglected to mention entirely, that my previous analogy needs to work is trust.
Simply put, I trust my wife, and if she tells me that she had a profound religious experience then I am inclined to believe her. If, say, the leader of the Doomsday cult Aum Shinrikio were to tell me the same thing then I probably would not believe him. Both of these are quite rational decisions in my opinion.
The only point I would contend is this one:
Religion on the other hand dictates one's morals and one's perspective on life. Accepting religious explanations at face value will narrow one's understanding of reality and keep an individual under the control of religious leaders.
Of course, this may not apply to you or anyone reading. A lot of people draw a line between religion and spirituality and don't base their beliefs on tradition or culture.
I would argue that this only applies to dishonest or mislead religious leaders. Personally I think that the ideal religious leader is more like a professor than a dictator, someone who explains things and helps people gain more understanding of the world, often by encouraging his students to think things through for themselves.
Omnipotence Paradox
I honestly hadn't heard of the differing definitions of Descartes versus Aquinas. Apparently I should do some reading on the subject.
-
It sounds ridiculous
To be fair, religion isn't just ridiculous on the surface; a thorough reading of their holy books will reveal just how bizarre they really are. I'm most familiar with the Bible, but the Qur'an, the Talmud, etc. all have similarly embarrassing stories. In the Bible, God is revealed to be unable to defeat an army because they have iron chariots, tells Isaiah to wander around naked for three years, mysteriously loses his omnipotence when the Israelites set up princes, threatens to spread dung on people's faces, smites people for doing exactly as he says, and more.
Historical contradictions
If something is contradicted by history, science or by itself then it is less than totally accurate. If something is flawed, how can it be trusted to be correct on other things for which there is no evidence?
The Invisible Pink Unicorn
Argument ad populum. People used to believe that the Earth was flat, that the sun went around the Earth, that eyes worked by shooting beams out rather than absorbing photons, that things increased in mass after being burned because something of negative mass was leaving, that coloured people were inferior, and many more idiotic things. There is so far no reason to believe that today's believers are more correct than today's flat earthers.
-
In regards to Innominate's responses to the following:
It Sounds Ridiculous
How is that meant to be a fair treatment of Christianity? You've gone through the Old Testament with the express purpose of finding flaws, after already deciding that they must be there. Then you took the four strangest sounding things you could find, removed them from their original context and misinterpreted them in ways no practicing Christian would ever accept, let alone what the actual Christian teachings are.
Historical Contradictions
Firstly, would you throw out your chemistry textbook if you found a typo in the chemical formula for glucose?
Second, you have ignored the main point of this argument. Finding a second source that disagrees in details with the Bible does not prove the Biblical account false.
Third the claim of "no evidence" is silly. You might not find the evidence convincing, but claiming there is no evidence at all is unsupportable.
Invisible Pink Unicorn
This is a response to a very specific argument, not a blanket statement.
I believe the original argument, as made by Bertrand Russell, was that he could not prove there was not a teapot orbiting Mars, yet this was not convincing evidence in favor of the teapot being there.
What every form of this argument invariably uses as an analogy is something silly, that no one would ever believe. What I have pointed out is that these are vastly flawed analogies.
-
In regards to Innominate's responses to the following:
It Sounds Ridiculous
How is that meant to be a fair treatment of Christianity? You've gone through the Old Testament with the express purpose of finding flaws, after already deciding that they must be there. Then you took the four strangest sounding things you could find, removed them from their original context and misinterpreted them in ways no practicing Christian would ever accept, let alone what the actual Christian teachings are.
If you were reading a book about how to perform triple valve bypass surgery and encountered a paragraph which suggested that wearing a clown hat and shouting "Olé" would improve survival rates, would you take it seriously? If the Bible was actually inspired by a timeless deity and not in fact written by superstitious iron age types like most other surviving holy books, wouldn't you expect all the bizarre stories to, well, not be there? The Bible, as with all holy books, makes perfect sense when viewed as the sole work of the people who wrote it. It's only when you claim that it was not fully authored by humans that these ridiculous stories become an issue.
By the way, the verses for those stories are:
Judges 1:19 - And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.
Isaiah 20:2-4 - At the same time spake the LORD by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, Go and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy shoe from thy foot. And he did so, walking naked and barefoot. And the LORD said, Like as my servant Isaiah hath walked naked and barefoot three years [for] a sign and wonder upon Egypt and upon Ethiopia; So shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, even with [their] buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt.
Hosea 8:4 - They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew [it] not: of their silver and their gold have they made them idols, that they may be cut off.
Malachi 2:3 - Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, [even] the dung of your solemn feasts; and [one] shall take you away with it.
Numbers 22:20-22 - And God came unto Balaam at night, and said unto him, If the men come to call thee, rise up, [and] go with them; but yet the word which I shall say unto thee, that shalt thou do. And Balaam rose up in the morning, and saddled his ass, and went with the princes of Moab. And God's anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the LORD stood in the way for an adversary against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants [were] with him.
Historical Contradictions
Firstly, would you throw out your chemistry textbook if you found a typo in the chemical formula for glucose?
No, but I would edit in the correction that the makers of the textbook would inevitably publish.
Second, you have ignored the main point of this argument. Finding a second source that disagrees in details with the Bible does not prove the Biblical account false.
What would then prove the Biblical account false? If something that explicitly proves it is wrong is not enough to prove it is wrong, what would be? Are we actually to accept that the Bible is above all other sources in that no evidence can ever contradict it?
Third the claim of "no evidence" is silly. You might not find the evidence convincing, but claiming there is no evidence at all is unsupportable.
Every piece of evidence thus far proposed has been shot down by secular philosophers. The same canards are still trotted out time and time again despite this. Invalid evidence is not evidence.
Invisible Pink Unicorn
This is a response to a very specific argument, not a blanket statement.
I believe the original argument, as made by Bertrand Russell, was that he could not prove there was not a teapot orbiting Mars, yet this was not convincing evidence in favor of the teapot being there.
What every form of this argument invariably uses as an analogy is something silly, that no one would ever believe. What I have pointed out is that these are vastly flawed analogies.
And my point is that the only reason you don't think that the idea of god is as ridiculous as an invisible pink unicorn is that many people believe it isn't. W're talking about a being which is invisible, outside the laws of the universe, capable of anything possible to be done, which writes holy books in the exact same style as the authors of that time write normally, talks to a few select people out of an entire universe vastly more impressive than humanity and gives people presents if they've been good and wished hard enough; how is this not every bit as ridiculous as an invisible pink unicorn, or leprechauns, or invisible teapots?
-
Invisible Pink Unicorn
This is a response to a very specific argument, not a blanket statement.
I believe the original argument, as made by Bertrand Russell, was that he could not prove there was not a teapot orbiting Mars, yet this was not convincing evidence in favor of the teapot being there.
What every form of this argument invariably uses as an analogy is something silly, that no one would ever believe. What I have pointed out is that these are vastly flawed analogies.
I would like to continue this discussion because this argument helped confirm my ideas about religion and helped me to develop opinions on other aspects of life. My original conversion came from a thought experiment that I will try to boil down to the essential: "How can a just supreme being provide so many different valid paths when only one is correct, and choosing wrong leads to eternal torment?" I freely welcome debate on either of these two arguments.
Invisible Pink Unicorn
Unless I missed it, the only response provided to this argument is an appeal to popular opinion as Innominate has pointed out.
Many different religions, only one can be correct
I am not familiar with the "official" name for this argument or have the proper analogy off-hand but I will give you my account.
If you are familiar with the game show Deal or No Deal this will be rather easy to follow. The "reward" for following mono-theistic religions is entry into Heaven and this can be symbolized by the case that has the million dollars in it. In this analogy each case you can pick is a different religion and only one can contain the $$, for there can only be one objective truth. However, unlike the game show, if you choose incorrectly instead of going home with a consolation prize or nothing at all, you will actually receive a punishment in the form of eternal torment. This analogy is not perfect, of course, because some religions do not have a heavenly reward or hellish punishment for following their creed. In some religions, you may be reincarnated as a roach, cow, or an enlightened individual depending on how close you follow their religious path. What I am trying to illustrate is that for almost all religions if you pick their case you will have a generally good outcome, where as if you don't you will have a generally bad outcome.
When playing the game there is no way to decipher which case holds the $$. What you have before you are rows of exactly identical cases. The only difference between them are numbers used for naming your selection. Only after opening a case will you know if you made the right decision. When choosing religions it is the same way. Each religion has its holy book, historical accounts, wizened elders, and masses of followers. They each may argue that their book is older, or their followers more numerous or more intelligent, but each also say that there is no way to prove theirs does or does not contain the $$. Because of this until you have chosen a path, walked it, and finished your mortal life you will never know if you were correct in your beliefs.
How do contestants on Deal or No Deal pick the right case? Luck. How do you pick the correct religion? Luck.
I say, if there was a creator that based the outcome of your afterlife on luck, then that is a vile creature not worth consideration, let alone worship.
-
Perhaps the problem is not how it is written, but the lack of understanding to Gods true intentions?
Judges 1:19 - And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.
http://bible.cc/judges/1-19.htm This Site explains it quite well. Gives several different translations, along with several commentaries as well. Read the commentaries for the logic behind this verse.
Isaiah 20:2-4 - At the same time spake the LORD by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, Go and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy shoe from thy foot. And he did so, walking naked and barefoot. And the LORD said, Like as my servant Isaiah hath walked naked and barefoot three years [for] a sign and wonder upon Egypt and upon Ethiopia; So shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, even with [their] buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt.
Perhaps reading the next 2 verses would bring some enlightenment?
___
5And they shall be afraid and ashamed of Ethiopia their expectation, and of Egypt their glory.
6And the inhabitant of this isle shall say in that day, Behold, such is our expectation, whither we flee for help to be delivered from the king of Assyria: and how shall we escape?
____
So there obviously was a point to this. Whether you think it is silly or not, sometimes a silly way to do something is the better way to do something.
Hosea 8:4 - They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew [it] not: of their silver and their gold have they made them idols, that they may be cut off.
I dont really get whats so crazy about this one... please enlighten me on your problem with it.
Malachi 2:3 - Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, [even] the dung of your solemn feasts; and [one] shall take you away with it.
Why dont we once again look at the full context instead of just taking one verse out.
2 If you do not listen, and if you do not set your heart to honor my name," says the LORD Almighty, "I will send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings. Yes, I have already cursed them, because you have not set your heart to honor me.
3 "Because of you I will rebuke [a] your descendants [ b ] ; I will spread on your faces the offal from your festival sacrifices, and you will be carried off with it. 4 And you will know that I have sent you this admonition so that my covenant with Levi may continue," says the LORD Almighty. 5 "My covenant was with him, a covenant of life and peace, and I gave them to him; this called for reverence and he revered me and stood in awe of my name. 6 True instruction was in his mouth and nothing false was found on his lips. He walked with me in peace and uprightness, and turned many from sin.
7 "For the lips of a priest ought to preserve knowledge, and from his mouth men should seek instruction—because he is the messenger of the LORD Almighty. 8 But you have turned from the way and by your teaching have caused many to stumble; you have violated the covenant with Levi," says the LORD Almighty. 9 "So I have caused you to be despised and humiliated before all the people, because you have not followed my ways but have shown partiality in matters of the law."
______
Seems like God was telling them to be careful about what they say. I think it makes much more sense when looked in context of the full verses around it. Just because you dont agree with methods, especially those of a different time and culture, doesnt mean anything.
Numbers 22:20-22 - And God came unto Balaam at night, and said unto him, If the men come to call thee, rise up, [and] go with them; but yet the word which I shall say unto thee, that shalt thou do. And Balaam rose up in the morning, and saddled his ass, and went with the princes of Moab. And God's anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the LORD stood in the way for an adversary against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants [were] with him.
Yahoo Answers does a good job of answering this question. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100723064712AAb9gQ3 It is explained quite well there.
Now the rest of the arguments, I am going to allow someone else to answer.
-
First off, allow me to thank everyone. This has been one of the most polite discussions of this topic I've ever had.
It sounds ridiculous
I think Bluepriest said it quite well. When you took the verses out of context they sounded silly, when he provided the verses around them suddenly they make sense again.
Historical Contradictions
My point here is that if they are weighed by the same standard as other historical accounts, Biblical accounts of verifiable events tend to hold up quite well, not that there is no possible way to disprove them.
A literal word-for-word interpretation of the Bible as an exact historical account is a belief only subscribed to by a small subset of Christians (fundamentalists).
Jesus taught in parables-when He told the story of the sower planting seeds He was not literally talking about seeds. In the same way most Christians interpret several books in the Bible as stories told to teach the reader something, not as a literal historical account. Chief among these are books such as Genesis, since in the original text these books are written as poetry, and do not resemble something meant as a historical account.
Not being a fundamentalist I can't really argue on their behalf, but they do have their own arguments.
Invisible Pink Unicorn
The main problem with making comparisons between things like the geocentric model of the solar system and God is that the geocentric model is a thought of the form "I believe X is true" whereas religious beliefs are of the form "I have experienced X in my own life".
When it comes to cases of whether or not people could be wrong about something these are very different cases. Examine these two statements:
1) 60% of people surveyed believe that there are UFOs
2) 60% of people surveyed have seen a UFO
The second statement is a much more convincing argument than the first. (don't read into the numbers, I just picked a random one for the example)
Finally (for now) on this topic, I never meant to imply that this was the only evidence in favor of Christianity, I only picked what I felt was most relevant to this specific argument. How many people have experienced God is not convincing by itself, I know this.
If you want we can start picking apart pieces of evidence that support (or don't support) Christianity. In fact, I'll go ahead and list one at the end of this post so you can respond to it if you like.
Many different religions, only one can be correct
We really aren't using "official" titles. The main purpose of the titles is so we can keep straight which argument we're talking about. You can title things however
This has been touched on some in Similar Ideas = Copying = All are wrong but the "gambling with salvation" point is certainly a new and interesting take on things.
My initial response is that the "many religions, only one leads to God" view is not the way I see things. My own belief is that different religions are, for the most part, different interpretations (& occasionally misinterpretations) of an underlying universal truth. What is commonly cited here is a parable about the blind men and the elephant.
There are three blind men, who have never encountered, nor heard of an elephant before. One day they come across a man with a tame elephant, who invites them to investigate it.
The first man touches the elephant's trunk and says "ah, an elephant is like a snake"
The next man touches the elephant's leg and says "I would say it's closer to a tree"
The third man touches the elephant's ear and says "It's more like cloth, where are you getting tree from?"
If in my own postmortem adventure I discover that I have been absolutely correct on every detail about God, I will be genuinely shocked. I am a flawed human being, I make no pretense at being anything else.
I consider myself Christian because I genuinely believe that Jesus was God's son, and that he gave himself up in sacrifice to allow humans into heaven. I do not believe that people could reach heaven without God's help (hence, Jesus) but I also do not believe that someone would necessarily be condemned for having the wrong idea. I know where I am is a safe place, but I don't know that there are no other safe places out there.
Some religions claim that they are the only true path, some do not.
Dead Sea Scrolls
Okay, and now the first thing that I'm posting here for your consideration, rather than as a response.
Basically, we have written accounts of the story of Jesus from people who were alive when it happened. I'm not referring to the Bible on my shelf, which is a copy of a copy of a copy etc., but the original handwritten documents. Historical dating is not so precise as to identify the exact manuscript, but we are relatively certain we have documents from within 100 years of the events.
Not all of these were Christian sources either. Tacitus (a Roman historian) and Josephus (a Jewish historian) both make references to Jesus within the first century after his death.
The Dead Sea Scrolls, which I named this after, were an early copy of the Old Testament.
I'm interested in your perspective on these documents.
Here's an article on it: http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html
(Note: I'll try to add more links to some references soon. Busy day)
-
Many different religions, only one can be correctMy initial response is that the "many religions, only one leads to God" view is not the way I see things. My own belief is that different religions are, for the most part, different interpretations (& occasionally misinterpretations) of an underlying universal truth. What is commonly cited here is a parable about the blind men and the elephant.
There are three blind men, who have never encountered, nor heard of an elephant before. One day they come across a man with a tame elephant, who invites them to investigate it.
The first man touches the elephant's trunk and says "ah, an elephant is like a snake"
The next man touches the elephant's leg and says "I would say it's closer to a tree"
The third man touches the elephant's ear and says "It's more like cloth, where are you getting tree from?"
If in my own postmortem adventure I discover that I have been absolutely correct on every detail about God, I will be genuinely shocked. I am a flawed human being, I make no pretense at being anything else.
I consider myself Christian because I genuinely believe that Jesus was God's son, and that he gave himself up in sacrifice to allow humans into heaven. I do not believe that people could reach heaven without God's help (hence, Jesus) but I also do not believe that someone would necessarily be condemned for having the wrong idea. I know where I am is a safe place, but I don't know that there are no other safe places out there.
Some religions claim that they are the only true path, some do not.
To press further into this, I would like your (or anyone's ;D) opinion on the following questions regarding a list of differing beliefs. I will use Christianity as the default belief.
- Question 1. Would this person go to hell?
- Question 2. Do you consider their belief rational?
- Question 3. Would you have an interest in possibly taking on their belief yourself?
For some people the earlier questions may automatically decide the later questions. ;)
- Person A. A person who identifies as a Christian but goes to a different denominational church than you.
- Person B. Someone with a different mono-theistic belief, such as Islam or Judaism.
- Person C. A follower of a polytheistic or pagan religion.
- Person D. An Amazonian tribesman who believes by following his elder's advice he will be reincarnated as a spirit animal.
- Person E. A patient held at a high-security mental institution who has a vision where a pink unicorn appears and explains the creation of the universe.
Either by answering each question or by skipping to the chase: What defines a belief as legitimate or representative of a universal truth?
-
Here is the problem. You are talking about a specific god existing. What this pink unicorn argument is talking about, if Im not mistaken ratcharmer, is the existance of A god. Not allah, or yaweh, or anything of the sort. Just the existance of a higher power.
Now in reference to your questions.
If I said all of those people were going to heaven, would that make my belief any more plausible?
If I said that they were all irrational/rational beliefs, would that make them any more plausible?
If I said that I would consider joining them, would that make them any more plausible?
Historical Contradictions
In case anyone thinks that ratcharmer wasnt clear, I want to point out the big problem for arguments against what he is saying.
People say the bible cant be used as a history source, because it it biased towards God existing.
On the exact opposite, I could say that other historical records, that you accept as fact cant be used because they are biased AGAINST there being a god.
Either one could be equally diluted.
-
If I said all of those people were going to heaven, would that make my belief any more plausible?
That is not consistent with Christianity or the Bible so I don't know what your belief would be.
If I said that they were all irrational/rational beliefs, would that make them any more plausible?
If you said they were all irrational I think you would be an atheist.
If you said they were all rational I think you would be insane.
If I said that I would consider joining them, would that make them any more plausible?
I would assume they would have become more plausible to yourself.
Do you have any more questions before you answer?
-
This is exactly my point though. They are loaded questions. Heres what can happen.
I can either A)Answer it so that it fits into how you think the world should be
B)Answer it some other way.
If I choose A, then really nothing happens. No impact is made, where as if I choose B, then it can be twisted to any way you would like. That is the point I was trying to make with the questions. They werent posed to find a solution in a neutral ground. They werent posed to find an answer at all. And since this is about any religion, Im going to answer them randomly due to a religion I just made up.
Person A. A person who identifies as a Christian but goes to a different denominational church than you.
Goes to heaven, rational, and no.
Person B. Someone with a different mono-theistic belief, such as Islam or Judaism.
Goes to heaven, rational, no
Person C. A follower of a polytheistic or pagan religion.
goes to heaven, rational, no
Person D. An Amazonian tribesman who believes by following his elder's advice he will be reincarnated as a spirit animal.
goes to heaven, rational, no
Person E. A patient held at a high-security mental institution who has a vision where a pink unicorn appears and explains the creation of the universe.
goes to heaven, irrarional, no.
So, what it the point of these questions you posed?
-
So, what it the point of these questions you posed?
What defines a belief as legitimate or representative of a universal truth?
-
For that, all you need is Question 2. Do you consider their belief rational?
My underlying question was why did you bother to ask
Question 1. Would this person go to hell?
-
Response to
Many different religions, only one can be correct
Question 1: For all of the people listed my honest answer has to be "I don't know". I'm fairly confident the Christian is in good hands, but without having gone to check for myself (i.e. died) or receiving a direct message from God on the matter I really can't make that call.
Question 2: I think whether someone's belief is rational or not usually depends more on how they arrived at it rather than the belief itself. I do think that it is easier to arrive at certain belief systems rationally than others, but from what I know of the beliefs listed, only person E could not arrive at his by rational thought, since it requires a vision (hallucination?).
Question 3: Beliefs aren't something one can really "decide" to change. What makes something my beliefs is that its what I really think is true, deep in the core of my being. I would be interested in hearing more about persons A, B, C and D's belief system (person E I would probably be biased against believing given his/her mental illness), but I cannot say whether or not I would, or even could, change to those belief systems without fully exploring them.
As far as what makes a belief system representative of universal truth, again, unfortunately I feel that I can't honestly say for sure unless God tells me directly. I feel that I was led to where I am in my beliefs by God, an that this is what He wants me to believe (at least for now).
There are, however, certain things that I would take as general indications of how trustworthy a religion is. These aren't 100% certain signs, but general guidelines.
-Does the religion have a history? Often times newly founded religions can be scams/cults.
-Does the religion condone anything that would be considered almost universally morally abhorrent? There are a few things that almost all societies agree are wrong (murder etc.). If mere humans know something is wrong odds are God knows it too.
-Do the leaders have ulterior motives? If someone has something to gain if church doctrine leans one way versus another, then that's going to bias their interpretation of the divine. A classical example of this would be in medieval Europe (around the crusades actually) when the Pope declared his every word was divinely inspired (this belief is no longer maintained by the Catholic Church-it went out with the geocentric solar system). Most religious leaders will have at least some ulterior motive (if they declare their religion invalid they lose their job) but in some cases it's much more apparent. Also, if you can find cases where a religious leader had an ulterior motive to decide one way, but went the other this is a good sign.
-What is this religion trying to do? Look at their ideals, are they generally well-meaning? Humans invariably fail to hold completely to the moral standards they set for themselves, but you should at least be able to feel good about what a religion is aiming for. This does not mean you have to agree with every cause they've ever supported, just ask yourself if they genuinely mean well.
-Look for familiar seeming bits. If you're seeking a universal truth then looking for things different religions all agree on is a good place to start.
Hope this was what you were looking for, or at least helpful if it wasn't.
-
Continuing discussion of Many different religions, only one can be correct
My understanding of Christianity comes from the Bible and what well-known Christians have said. It is a core belief that those who do not accept Jesus Christ as savior will go to Hell.
3:16 For this is the way 36 God loved the world: He gave his one and only 37 Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish 38 but have eternal life. 39 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, 40 but that the world should be saved through him. 3:18 The one who believes in him is not condemned. 41 The one who does not believe has been condemned 42 already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only 43 Son of God. 3:19 Now this is the basis for judging: 44 that the light has come into the world and people 45 loved the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds were evil. 3:20 For everyone who does evil deeds hates the light and does not come to the light, so that their deeds will not be exposed. 3:21 But the one who practices the truth comes to the light, so that it may be plainly evident that his deeds have been done in God.13:36 Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples came to him saying, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field.” 13:37 He 54 answered, “The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. 13:38 The field is the world and the good seed are the people 55 of the kingdom. The weeds are the people 56 of the evil one, 13:39 and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels. 13:40 As 57 the weeds are collected and burned with fire, so it will be at the end of the age. 13:41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather from his kingdom everything that causes sin as well as all lawbreakers. 58 13:42 They will throw them into the fiery furnace, 59 where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 13:43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. 60 The one who has ears had better listen! 61
And then ratcharmer says this:
I do not believe that people could reach heaven without God's help (hence, Jesus) but I also do not believe that someone would necessarily be condemned for having the wrong idea. I know where I am is a safe place, but I don't know that there are no other safe places out there.
I can't see how those resolve with each other. Either ratcharmer, you don't understand Christianity or you have made your own religion that resembles Christianity. What other explanation can there be?
EDIT: Actually I remembered some: Deism, Universalism, probably others. For those beliefs you don't need a Bible.
-
Perhaps the problem is not how it is written, but the lack of understanding to Gods true intentions?
Judges 1:19 - And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.
http://bible.cc/judges/1-19.htm This Site explains it quite well. Gives several different translations, along with several commentaries as well. Read the commentaries for the logic behind this verse.
I noticed that the different translations give completely different pronouns for the subject thtad drives out the inhabitants of the mountains and not the valley. So I went to the Hebrew to see if I could find which pronoun was used. And, since I have no experience reading Hebrew, I failed completely. I did notice that the Hebrew-English translation Bible (http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0701.htm) I was using used "he" instead of "they", but until I or somebody else can verify which translation (he or they) is correct, this one's going to have to sit on the backburner. If it's he, God is unable to drive out the valley people. If it's they, it's just the people of Judah being wimps.
Isaiah 20:2-4 - At the same time spake the LORD by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, Go and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy shoe from thy foot. And he did so, walking naked and barefoot. And the LORD said, Like as my servant Isaiah hath walked naked and barefoot three years [for] a sign and wonder upon Egypt and upon Ethiopia; So shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, even with [their] buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt.
Perhaps reading the next 2 verses would bring some enlightenment?
___
5And they shall be afraid and ashamed of Ethiopia their expectation, and of Egypt their glory.
6And the inhabitant of this isle shall say in that day, Behold, such is our expectation, whither we flee for help to be delivered from the king of Assyria: and how shall we escape?
____
So there obviously was a point to this. Whether you think it is silly or not, sometimes a silly way to do something is the better way to do something.
Well as the most powerful being in the universe he could have done anything to change their minds. But the Old Testament is a pretty clear example that Yahweh is obsessed with human genitalia, and so he chose nudity.
Hosea 8:4 - They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew [it] not: of their silver and their gold have they made them idols, that they may be cut off.
I dont really get whats so crazy about this one... please enlighten me on your problem with it.
God isn't evidently as omniscient as he normally is. Maybe it was a bad day?
Malachi 2:3 - Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, [even] the dung of your solemn feasts; and [one] shall take you away with it.
Why dont we once again look at the full context instead of just taking one verse out.
2 If you do not listen, and if you do not set your heart to honor my name," says the LORD Almighty, "I will send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings. Yes, I have already cursed them, because you have not set your heart to honor me.
3 "Because of you I will rebuke [a] your descendants [ b ] ; I will spread on your faces the offal from your festival sacrifices, and you will be carried off with it. 4 And you will know that I have sent you this admonition so that my covenant with Levi may continue," says the LORD Almighty. 5 "My covenant was with him, a covenant of life and peace, and I gave them to him; this called for reverence and he revered me and stood in awe of my name. 6 True instruction was in his mouth and nothing false was found on his lips. He walked with me in peace and uprightness, and turned many from sin.
7 "For the lips of a priest ought to preserve knowledge, and from his mouth men should seek instruction—because he is the messenger of the LORD Almighty. 8 But you have turned from the way and by your teaching have caused many to stumble; you have violated the covenant with Levi," says the LORD Almighty. 9 "So I have caused you to be despised and humiliated before all the people, because you have not followed my ways but have shown partiality in matters of the law."
______
Seems like God was telling them to be careful about what they say. I think it makes much more sense when looked in context of the full verses around it. Just because you dont agree with methods, especially those of a different time and culture, doesnt mean anything.
It may make more sense, but it goes to show that God is also obsessed with the human emissions. Semen, menstrual fluid, faeces, urine; God has an unhealthy obsession with all of them. The Old Testament (and at least one verse in the New Testament) reads like a long string of faecal humour, interrupted frequently by boring bouts of history (admittedly this is hyperbole, but still). Try the Bible Poop Quiz (http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0505/biblepoopquiz.html) if you don't believe me.
Numbers 22:20-22 - And God came unto Balaam at night, and said unto him, If the men come to call thee, rise up, [and] go with them; but yet the word which I shall say unto thee, that shalt thou do. And Balaam rose up in the morning, and saddled his ass, and went with the princes of Moab. And God's anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the LORD stood in the way for an adversary against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants [were] with him.
Yahoo Answers does a good job of answering this question. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100723064712AAb9gQ3 It is explained quite well there.
The response appears to be that, despite the verse explicitly saying "God's anger was kindled because he went", that God's anger was actually kindled because he was bickering. It's nice to know that when a problem arises we can just reject what the Bible says.
It sounds ridiculous
I think Bluepriest said it quite well. When you took the verses out of context they sounded silly, when he provided the verses around them suddenly they make sense again.
They still sound silly, the silliness is just justified within the text. That doesn't mean it isn't silly, only that the text itself can't see how silly it is. It's almost like the text was written by an old people who were obsessed with excretions and sex.
Historical Contradictions
My point here is that if they are weighed by the same standard as other historical accounts, Biblical accounts of verifiable events tend to hold up quite well, not that there is no possible way to disprove them.
Ah I see. It's true that historically the Bible is pretty much exactly as accurate as every other book written by people in the same period of human history, but I think that's pretty much a condemnation rather than proof that it's divinely inspired.
A literal word-for-word interpretation of the Bible as an exact historical account is a belief only subscribed to by a small subset of Christians (fundamentalists).
But Christians aren't the governing authority on what the Bible says. The Jews, the ones that wrote the Old Testament, would be authorities on the Old Testament if anyone was. The fact is however that the Christians and Jews alive today are not the ones that wrote the Bible or Tanakh, and so they interpret just as much as the atheists and muslims. Whether the zeitgeist has moved beyond literalism is irrelevant to whether literalism is true: do you have evidence to suggest that the people who wrote the books of the Bible believed that they weren't literal?
Jesus taught in parables-when He told the story of the sower planting seeds He was not literally talking about seeds. In the same way most Christians interpret several books in the Bible as stories told to teach the reader something, not as a literal historical account. Chief among these are books such as Genesis, since in the original text these books are written as poetry, and do not resemble something meant as a historical account.
Not being a fundamentalist I can't really argue on their behalf, but they do have their own arguments.
Genesis is indeed written in poetic Hebrew, just like The Iliad and The Odyssey are written in poetic Greek: both are intended to be historical accounts of a nation's history, not simply dismissed because science now disagrees with the creation account. Writing history as poetry or song is an ancient tradition, going back to the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh and Australian Aboriginal Dreamtime stories (their creation accounts, so directly relevant).
Invisible Pink Unicorn
The main problem with making comparisons between things like the geocentric model of the solar system and God is that the geocentric model is a thought of the form "I believe X is true" whereas religious beliefs are of the form "I have experienced X in my own life".
When it comes to cases of whether or not people could be wrong about something these are very different cases. Examine these two statements:
1) 60% of people surveyed believe that there are UFOs
2) 60% of people surveyed have seen a UFO
The second statement is a much more convincing argument than the first. (don't read into the numbers, I just picked a random one for the example)
And you've incidentally proved my point: that humans are extremely credulous. The people who believe that they have seen a UFO have not actually seen UFOs; we have rational scientific explanations for everything that they saw, and we can actually trigger similar experiences by stimulating the brain with electricity (interestingly, we can give a person untrained in meditation an enlightenment experience by stimulating the section responsible for defining the limits of our body). Despite these explanations, humans will still believe exactly what they want to believe. Human belief is almost entirely irrelevant to truth.
Many different religions, only one can be correct
We really aren't using "official" titles. The main purpose of the titles is so we can keep straight which argument we're talking about. You can title things however
This has been touched on some in Similar Ideas = Copying = All are wrong but the "gambling with salvation" point is certainly a new and interesting take on things.
My initial response is that the "many religions, only one leads to God" view is not the way I see things. My own belief is that different religions are, for the most part, different interpretations (& occasionally misinterpretations) of an underlying universal truth. What is commonly cited here is a parable about the blind men and the elephant.
There are three blind men, who have never encountered, nor heard of an elephant before. One day they come across a man with a tame elephant, who invites them to investigate it.
The first man touches the elephant's trunk and says "ah, an elephant is like a snake"
The next man touches the elephant's leg and says "I would say it's closer to a tree"
The third man touches the elephant's ear and says "It's more like cloth, where are you getting tree from?"
If in my own postmortem adventure I discover that I have been absolutely correct on every detail about God, I will be genuinely shocked. I am a flawed human being, I make no pretense at being anything else.
The parable is on the right track, but it misses something in the scale. All religion is guesswork, and the guessing covers a much broader scale than an elephant's different parts; for one thing, not all possible religions have been formulated. The sheer number of possible theologies is staggering, and every religion has a diametric opposite. In other words not only is it possible to be wrong by not guessing correctly, it's possible to be 100% wrong by guessing the opposite of the truth. There are so many different areas in which a religion could differ that the chances of getting even a small fraction of them correct is infinitesimal.
I consider myself Christian because I genuinely believe that Jesus was God's son, and that he gave himself up in sacrifice to allow humans into heaven. I do not believe that people could reach heaven without God's help (hence, Jesus) but I also do not believe that someone would necessarily be condemned for having the wrong idea. I know where I am is a safe place, but I don't know that there are no other safe places out there.
Some religions claim that they are the only true path, some do not.
See now I like that idea. Full steam ahead for universalism, particularly for the "people with honest doubts don't go to hell" part.
Dead Sea Scrolls
Okay, and now the first thing that I'm posting here for your consideration, rather than as a response.
Basically, we have written accounts of the story of Jesus from people who were alive when it happened. I'm not referring to the Bible on my shelf, which is a copy of a copy of a copy etc., but the original handwritten documents. Historical dating is not so precise as to identify the exact manuscript, but we are relatively certain we have documents from within 100 years of the events.
Not all of these were Christian sources either. Tacitus (a Roman historian) and Josephus (a Jewish historian) both make references to Jesus within the first century after his death.
Yes they do indeed reference Jesus. It would be intellectually dishonest to claim that they didn't; by the standards of history, Jesus was most definitely a historical figure. History does not however support the idea that Jesus wrought miracles. Miracle accounts tend to be left out of the other gospels, contradicted in important details, or directly plagiarised.
Consider Mark 6:30-44 and Mark 8:1-9 (feeding of the five and four thousand, respectively). Compare Mark 6:39-44 and Mark 8:6-9 directly, and see how many words match up exactly. Then see that the disciples are exactly as incredulous before the feeding of the four thousand as they were before the feeding of the five thousand. Their behaviour is not what we would expect from people who actually saw a miracle, but it is exactly how characters were commonly used in Greek dialogue to explain moral lessons. The student asks and the teacher explains, because the student is just a surrogate for the teacher. The miracles of the Bible are parables as much as the rest of them.
Mark 6:35-37 - And when the day was now far spent, his disciples came unto him, and said, This is a desert place, and now the time is far passed: Send them away, that they may go into the country round about, and into the villages, and buy themselves bread: for they have nothing to eat. He answered and said unto them, Give ye them to eat. And they say unto him, Shall we go and buy two hundred pennyworth of bread, and give them to eat?
Mark 8:3-4 - And if I send them away fasting to their own houses, they will faint by the way: for divers of them came from far. And his disciples answered him, From whence can a man satisfy these men with bread here in the wilderness?
Plagiarism between gospels:
Mark 1:23-28 Versus Luke 4:33-37
Just then a man in their synagogue who was possessed by an evil spirit cried out, "What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!"
In the synagogue there was a man possessed by a demon, an evil spirit. He cried out at the top of his voice, "Ha! What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!"
"Be quiet!" said Jesus sternly. "Come out of him!" The evil spirit shook the man violently and came out of him with a shriek.
"Be quiet!" Jesus said sternly. "Come out of him!" Then the demon threw the man down before them all and came out without injuring him.
The people were all so amazed that they asked each other, "What is this? A new teaching—and with authority! He even gives orders to evil spirits and they obey him." News about him spread quickly over the whole region of Galilee.
And they were all amazed, and spake among themselves, saying, What a word is this! for with authority and power he commandeth the unclean spirits, and they come out. And the fame of him went out into every place of the country round about.
Mark 1:40-44 Versus Luke 5:12-14 Versus Matthew 8:2-4
A man with leprosy came to him and begged him on his knees, "If you are willing, you can make me clean."
While Jesus was in one of the towns, a man came along who was covered with leprosy. When he saw Jesus, he fell with his face to the ground and begged him, "Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean."
A man with leprosy came and knelt before him and said, "Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean."
Filled with compassion, Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!" Immediately the leprosy left him and he was cured.
Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!" And immediately the leprosy left him.
Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!" Immediately he was cured of his leprosy.
Jesus sent him away at once with a strong warning: "See that you don't tell this to anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your cleansing, as a testimony to them."
Then Jesus ordered him, "Don't tell anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your cleansing, as a testimony to them."
Then Jesus said to him, "See that you don't tell anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift Moses commanded, as a testimony to them."
I could find more, and will on request, but this post is quite long already. The point is that the gospel authors, when they corroborate each other, do so with what is in places identical phrasing, and almost always an identical order. The rest of the time they disagree on important details, like how many people were present when Jesus' body was discovered to be missing, whether there were angels there, etc. Sometimes amazing miracles don't rate a mention in other gospels (John for example mentions 5 miracles that don't occur in any other gospel, and only has 2 that do). Stranger still, the disciples never learn a damned thing. Despite allegedly witnessing dozens of miracles and even performing some, they are always the incredulous student being taught a lesson, much like Plato was to Socrates in Plato's works.
As evidence for miracles, the gospels are flimsy: everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet. The earliest of the gospels was written at least 20 years after Jesus died, and so we would expect the stories transcribed to vary wildly: quotes should be different, things should happen in a different order, and only the most important details should stay the same. Yet we see the opposite of all these things. Quotes are verbatim copies or only ever so slightly different, things happen in the same order all the time, and minor details are consistent while major ones change. These are all the things we would expect from people writing stories for people to learn from, not from historical accounts.
-
It seems you do not quite understand innominate.
Judges 1:19
The point here wasnt whether the translation was he or they. The point was that they had lost their trust in God again, and so because of their lack of faith (due to the Iron Chariots), God did not allow them to conquer them.
Isaiah 20:2-4
Arguments like these show true hatred for the bible, and are not meant to be intellectual. Right here, as much as I hate to say it, you are sounding like iampostal.
Malachi 2:3
You know what is interesting? Out of the three bibles I have with me right now, all of different types, The first one has an OT that is 1252 pages long, the second has an OT that is 1186 pages long, and the third has an OT that is 1368 pages long. How does 10 references even 20 or 30, that hardly take up an entire sentence, show that God is obsessed with the things you mentioned?seems like it isnt even 1% of what is talked about.
However, I just wanted to quickly point that out, as it relates to your response to the above verse as well. However this seems to be another argument born out or resentment, and not out of intellect, so I am leaving it alone as well.
Numbers 22:20-22
No the point is that you have to actually look at the entire scripture instead of just one verse to truly understand ANYTHING in the bible.
Hosea 8:4
It seems many bibles consider the proper wording here to be acknowledged and not a lack of truth. When you can't look at the hebrew, and yet see discrepancies in the different versions, a good practice is to compare it to the rest of the bible, and see which translation appears to be more accurate.
Thats all from me for now, I like reading long posts, but I hate sorting through my own long ones.
-
First off, i'm starting to get a little mixed up as to who is referring to what argument when. Try to refer back to the title each time. Some debates can get confusing enough as it is.
Continuing discussion of Many different religions, only one can be correct
I've mentioned several times now that I generally find it a little offensive when people of different beliefs try to tell me how I have to interpret my own beliefs. I know you didn't intend offense here but please pay me the courtesy of not assuming that if you don't know how I came to a given conclusion that I must have completely forgotten about some of the best known passages in the Bible.
As to the specific passages you mentioned:
In John 3 Jesus is speaking to a very specific group of religious leaders of the day, who had met Jesus, been impressed by his teachings, seen him work miracles and signs from God, and yet were still not only refusing to acknowledge Jesus, but were actively plotting against him. Even though they knew beyond a doubt that Jesus was who he said he was they still refused him because it would have meant giving up their privileged position as religious authorities.
If you don't believe me on this consider the example of St. Thomas. He had been earnestly following Jesus' teaching and was seeking truth, but when confronted with the story of Jesus' resurrection he couldn't accept it, and demanded evidence. Instead of condemning him Jesus gave him the evidence that he asked for.
I could also cite St. Peter, who denied Christ multiple times, then Jesus took him back gladly.
As to Matthew 13, all this is saying is that some bad people will receive punishment. It does not say who specifically, but from the context it appears He is referring to those who drive people away from God through gross misdeeds.
and from Innominate:
The parable is on the right track, but it misses something in the scale. All religion is guesswork, and the guessing covers a much broader scale than an elephant's different parts; for one thing, not all possible religions have been formulated. The sheer number of possible theologies is staggering, and every religion has a diametric opposite. In other words not only is it possible to be wrong by not guessing correctly, it's possible to be 100% wrong by guessing the opposite of the truth. There are so many different areas in which a religion could differ that the chances of getting even a small fraction of them correct is infinitesimal.
The underlined statement is an assumption, and one that can only be reached by discarding all almost all testimony coming from religious persons, only for the reason that it came from a religious person.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It sounds ridiculous
This is really starting to look more like flinging insults then a serious examination of the argument.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Invisible Pink Unicorn
We can also trace hunger back to specific nerve impulses and areas of the brain. That does not mean food does not exist.
Can I ask for a source on how you can trigger a UFO sighting or enlightenment by running current through someone's brain? I can't think of anyway someone could run that experiment without severely violating some human rights.
You're still taking statements of "I saw that for myself" as "I think that happened"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dead Sea Scrolls
It seems you have two different arguments here, and they directly contradict one another.
One states Gospels don't match each other, and the other says they match each other too closely and are therefore plagiarized.
The disciples state that the writers of each Gospel checked with the other disciples to confirm he wasn't misrepresenting the story. This can answer both arguments quite handily, since a) it isn't plagiarism if you cite your source and b) if there were such condemning differences between the narratives as you suppose, why would they have left them in? An event may be missing from one of the Gospels because the author wasn't there, or there are several places where the authors state that there were more signs & wonders performed, but not all of them were recorded in that book.
-
@ratcharmer
I apologize about demanding an explanation of an interpretation that you don't hold. I guess I was essentially creating a "straw man" based on my understanding of the belief. I appreciate your even response to it.
Many different religions, only one can be correct
In my ignorance I ascribed the "fire and brimstone" mentality as a core to Christianity and apparently it is not. So, that makes very curious. Do you feel the Bible makes any statement as to the fate of non-believers?
I also have a question for anyone, just so I can better understand. Is there anything outside the Bible that influenced you in your belief that Jesus is the son of God, and that that god is the only one there is?
-
As to your last point, I find that the actions of followers can be a very powerful testimony to the truth of their handbook. I see it politically, as well as in religion, and within the latter, I see it across faiths.
I see something of a symbiotic relationship between the bible, as a text, and Christians themselves. When a Christian goes off-message – or perhaps even off the rails, which is sadly often the case – the bible is a benchmark which you can call them on. And vice versa, the only way to really see if the bible is worth a damn, or the Torah, or the Koran, or Chairman Mao’s Little Red Book, is to examine and study its followers, and see how it working out for them.
Just briefly relating to the discussion of :fire and brimstone, I find that most outsider’s perceptions of Christianity – or again, insert Islam, Judaism etc here – is based on a cultural perspective of the faith’s followers and modern history, rather than a close knowledge of the core tenets of the faith.
For example, the three biggest buttons to press in 21st century society, when dealing with Christianity, involve evolution, homosexuality, and abortion.
Yet, Jesus never spoke a damn word about any of them. So why do people so much disproportionate time on these hot potatoes?
-
Regarding ratcharmer's belief that not believing in Jesus may not prevent you from going to heaven...
I just want to mention that while what ratcharmer said may indeed be true, the Bible is open to interpretation.
I believe, for instance, that you indeed won't go to heaven unless you believe Jesus Christ your savior.
Here's the basic reasoning I follow:
Can you go to heaven with sin? No.
Are we sinners? Yes.
Did Jesus Christ forgive our sins? Yes.
Can Jesus forgive our sins if we don't let him into our hearts? No.
So, if we believe in Jesus as our savior, can we go to heaven? Yes.
If we don't? No.
(Note that that's one of the main reasons Christianity is so evangelical. Believers want to save those that don't).
That's not to say God doesn't love those who haven't accepted them, and we will indeed accept them back if they ask for forgiveness. A man who has preached at my church before once told a story of his father:
His father was basically a bad guy. Left him when he was eight, had gambling problems he left the family with so they had to move out, and was a chain smoker. They didn't have contact for 30 years, but this man prayed for his father to come back every day. Finally, 30 years later, his father called him and asked to come home. It turns out his dad was dieing from lung cancer, and indeed died 9 months later, but in that time he became saved.
Basically, what I'm trying to say, is that there are different branches of Christianity for a reason :). However, just because we differ on a few points doesn't mean one of us isn't going to heaven. Au contraire, I'm fairly certain we both believe in God and Jesus. It may mean one of us is right and one of us is wrong, but who's to say who that is?
-
Can you go to heaven with sin? No.
Are we sinners? Yes.
Did Jesus Christ forgive our sins? Yes.
Can Jesus forgive our sins if we don't let him into our hearts? No.
So, if we believe in Jesus as our savior, can we go to heaven? Yes.
If we don't? No.
(Note that that's one of the main reasons Christianity is so evangelical. Believers want to save those that don't).
Personally I feel this is a core belief of Christianity.I may not agree with what certain denominations of it say, however, this is the most important thing to me.
-
It seems you do not quite understand innominate.
Judges 1:19
The point here wasnt whether the translation was he or they. The point was that they had lost their trust in God again, and so because of their lack of faith (due to the Iron Chariots), God did not allow them to conquer them.
Every translation there uses a phrase meaning "could not", as opposed to "decided not to allow". If the pronoun is "he" and not "they", then the verse is quite explicitly saying that God was unable to conquer the people of the valley because they had chariots of iron. If the pronoun is "they", then it is simply a failure of the people of Judah.
Isaiah 20:2-4
Arguments like these show true hatred for the bible, and are not meant to be intellectual. Right here, as much as I hate to say it, you are sounding like iampostal.
There are 146 verses that use a word relating to circumcision (some of these are even being used as a metaphor for purity), and it was a requirement to get into heaven before Jesus. Heaven was even denied to men who had crushed genitalia, and couldn't offer bread to god. Women were unclean after birth (interestingly only 7 days for a male child but two weeks for a girl) and during and after menstruation (so presumably half the time that they're not pregant; they also make anybody who has sex with them unclean). Men on the other hand were unclean if they had a "running issue out of his flesh" (i.e. a sexually transmitted disease) or ejaculated (making their partner unclean in the process). All these different things have very specific instructions and take up a fair chunk of Leviticus.
There are 218 separate references to sex or genitalia (dealt with over many more verses), including extensive, specific restrictions on what you can or cannot have sex with. By comparison, there are 100 references to Hell; perhaps less if certain phrases like "the outer darkness" are taken not to mean Hell. There are far more references to heaven, over 551 (which is how many verses in the KJV use that word). So if we were to take the occurrence of these themes as indications of God's priorities, we would have to conclude that sex and genitalia are more important than Hell but less so than heaven.
The references to sex are not single verses but verse chunks, so the actual span is greater than that at 608 verses (I used a nifty program to sum up the number of verses on the Skeptic's Annotated Bible page about sex (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/sex/long.htm)). This would put it past the post of heaven, except the treatment would be unfair, since the heaven references (which I can't be bothered to count) were single verses not chunks; heaven still beats sex.
Malachi 2:3
You know what is interesting? Out of the three bibles I have with me right now, all of different types, The first one has an OT that is 1252 pages long, the second has an OT that is 1186 pages long, and the third has an OT that is 1368 pages long. How does 10 references even 20 or 30, that hardly take up an entire sentence, show that God is obsessed with the things you mentioned?seems like it isnt even 1% of what is talked about.
However, I just wanted to quickly point that out, as it relates to your response to the above verse as well. However this seems to be another argument born out or resentment, and not out of intellect, so I am leaving it alone as well.
It was indeed hyperbole. The point I was trying to make was that dung, semen, menstrual fluid and urine make much more of an appearance in the Bible than we would expect from a book written by a god, but pretty much the same amount we would expect from a book written by iron age nomads (later, when there are fewer references to those emissions, happens to coincide with the Israelites settling down and hence not having to worry about dealing with filth in a campsite - the circumstances of the Israelites drove what they wrote, not any god).
Numbers 22:20-22
No the point is that you have to actually look at the entire scripture instead of just one verse to truly understand ANYTHING in the bible.
So how do you decide which verses are kosher and which aren't? When the Bible says "God is Love" nobody raises any objections that verses are being taken out of context or anything. It's only when a verse says "God killed him because he did what God told him to do" that we find that apparently you need to read the entire scripture. Well God killed over 2,391,421 people in the Bible (and that's just the ones where explicit numbers are given; he probably killed more than that just with the flood), drowned the entire planet's population, ordered genocide against the Amalekites, let Satan destroy a man's life and kill his entire family for a bet and destroyed entire cities. So when the Bible says "God is Love", do they mean "God Loves to kill things"?
Hosea 8:4
It seems many bibles consider the proper wording here to be acknowledged and not a lack of truth. When you can't look at the hebrew, and yet see discrepancies in the different versions, a good practice is to compare it to the rest of the bible, and see which translation appears to be more accurate.
Thats all from me for now, I like reading long posts, but I hate sorting through my own long ones.
The word translated as "knew" is יָדַע, transliterated as "yada". It's translated as "acknowledge" 6 times in the KJV, out of 947 appearances in total. נָכַר, "nakar", is the only other Hebrew word ever translated as "acknowledge" in the KJV, translated so 7 times out of 50 appearances. Now it's certainly possible that "acknowledge" is the intended meaning - it would fit with the common Hebrew poetic technique of repetition (from the NIV: "They set up kings without my consent; they choose princes without my approval." and the only other Bible to translate it differently from knowledge is the World English Bible), and without a more detailed knowledge of how Hebrew words connote different things I'll have to let this one go.
The parable is on the right track, but it misses something in the scale. All religion is guesswork, and the guessing covers a much broader scale than an elephant's different parts; for one thing, not all possible religions have been formulated. The sheer number of possible theologies is staggering, and every religion has a diametric opposite. In other words not only is it possible to be wrong by not guessing correctly, it's possible to be 100% wrong by guessing the opposite of the truth. There are so many different areas in which a religion could differ that the chances of getting even a small fraction of them correct is infinitesimal.
The underlined statement is an assumption, and one that can only be reached by discarding all almost all testimony coming from religious persons, only for the reason that it came from a religious person.
It's not that it came from a religious person. It could come from 200 ft high writing on cliffs that appeared overnight and it wouldn't change the central problem: whether it is true or not is impossible to prove. There is no way to differentiate between genuine and false divine inspiration, so it comes down to guesswork. It's like which interpretation of quantum mechanics you favour: they're all identical in their predictions, so nothing we could do would provide evidence for one that wasn't applicable to all of them. Thus the interpretation you choose is guesswork.
It sounds ridiculous
This is really starting to look more like flinging insults then a serious examination of the argument.
My argument is that the Bible is preoccupied with earthly details, particularly the Old Testament. Rather than holding special knowledge, the Bible is exactly what we would expect if it was written by the people who were alive then, and very little like we would expect a book written by a god to be. God in the Old Testament is war-like, much like the Israelites were. Later on when the Israelites have established themselves and no longer need to fight every tribe in the area, God stops telling them to fight other tribes. Where was the New Testament message of peace and love when the Israelites were fighting to survive? About 2,000 years away, that's where. Only when the authors of the Bible no longer needed to fight did God stop telling them to fight.
God didn't lead the Israelites; the Israelites led God. There's some interesting research which suggests humans endow God with the beliefs we already hold (here (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18216-dear-god-please-confirm-what-i-already-believe.html)), and the Bible fits well with that notion.
Invisible Pink Unicorn
We can also trace hunger back to specific nerve impulses and areas of the brain. That does not mean food does not exist.
If we can simulate the effects of a religious experience by modifying the brain then it means that religious experience is no longer a valid argument for religion. It doesn't prove that religion is false, just as hunger being rooted in the brain doesn't prove food doesn't exist, but it does mean that a genuine religious experience isn't the only explanation.
Can I ask for a source on how you can trigger a UFO sighting or enlightenment by running current through someone's brain? I can't think of anyway someone could run that experiment without severely violating some human rights.
Triggering out of body experiences and "shadow presences" by stimulating the angular gyrus (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/03/health/psychology/03shad.html?_r=1)
The Neuropsychiatry of Paranormal Experiences, Michael Persinger (http://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/13/4/515#SEC5)
The website of the "God Helmet", called the Shakti (http://www.shaktitechnology.com/neurotheology.htm)
UFO sightings are an "attribution error", where a visual hallucination is attributed to an alien craft rather than the brain 'misfiring'. UFO abduction stories are more often confabulation, or the rewriting of a memory to explain things that the brain doesn't accurately remember - everybody does it, because the brain can't hold all memories perfectly accurately. Sometimes it just kind of stores the big parts and then fills in the gaps. Sleep paralysis is sometimes interpreted as a UFO abduction as well; you can't move and the brain is still in a dream state (and so you see weird images), but you feel like you're awake. Some people get the problem all the time, while most never do. It has been researched quite a bit in laboratories.
You're still taking statements of "I saw that for myself" as "I think that happened"
Because ultimately that's what all such statements are. Optical illusions show how easily we can be misled about reality.
Dead Sea Scrolls
It seems you have two different arguments here, and they directly contradict one another.
One states Gospels don't match each other, and the other says they match each other too closely and are therefore plagiarized.
Sections of the gospels, not the gospels as a whole. If three people who concocted a story together are asked about it, they will use extremely similar phrasing, detail and an identical order of events. On the other hand if you ask these same three people, separately, to make up a story about the same thing on the spot then they will disagree on major details. These are the two different types of miracle account in the Bible: some are copied from each other while others are concocted about the same event separately. I don't know why some events are copied while others are concocted, but it's most likely because the authors wanted to inject their own message into some events and not others.
The disciples state that the writers of each Gospel checked with the other disciples to confirm he wasn't misrepresenting the story. This can answer both arguments quite handily, since a) it isn't plagiarism if you cite your source and b) if there were such condemning differences between the narratives as you suppose, why would they have left them in? An event may be missing from one of the Gospels because the author wasn't there, or there are several places where the authors state that there were more signs & wonders performed, but not all of them were recorded in that book.
Even when people check with others the phrasing is bound to differ. The same person writing two accounts of the same event a few months apart will differ more in their summary than the Gospels do, as will the same person telling two different people the same story. The only place the near-verbatim copies could have come from is the actual text itself. The Gospels were not written independently but with full knowledge of the preceding Gospels (except for John's, which does appear to have been written independently, and Mark's, which was the first). There is little evidence to suggest that the Gospels were actually authored by any of the discisples. Mark's gospel was most likely written after 65 AD, and John's after 90 AD.
The reason the differences were left in was probably because the gospel authors didn't intend for them to be read together: Matthew's gospel was most likely intended to be read by Jews, Mark's by Romans and Luke's by Greeks, while John probably didn't have a specific audience in mind but wrote long after the others. Further, they probably disagreed with each other over what was more important.
Also, if an "event may be missing from one of the Gospels because the author wasn't there", why do we have the story of Jesus in the desert and his prayer in the garden of Gethsemane? Which of the authors was there when Jesus was alone in the desert, or alone when praying the night before his death? It's hard to see how those could be sourced from an eye-witness when the text itself says there was none.
-
3)Try to use sources if you can. See my signature for a discussing on why citations are important. Be as detailed as possible.
I think we all need to remember this, as none of us have done this
-
@ Innominate: (I think this is in reference to Invisible Pink Unicorn, but I'm honestly not sure at this point)
Thanks for the links! Some of these are really cool. It's gonna take me awhile to read through everything. I had heard of the out-of body experiments before, but not the others.
As to my initial response to this in terms of religion, I'll quote from one of the articles:
The critical question is, what sources within and without the brain can create these experiences?
Simply put, these experiments showed an artificial way to activate a state of elevated consciousness normally associated with religious experience. Most of the other phenomena could be explained as a misfiring of normal processes of the brain, but the religious experiences really can't be.
The problem with trying to tie being able to create a given perception artificially to an argument against that perception lies in this: if we no longer accept human perception as evidence for something (even if the majority of the human race perceives it) then we can safely discard literally everything we know. Even if something can be experimentally verified, we're going by our perceptions of that experiment.
I'll follow up with a couple more quotes from the articles:
Are scientists arguing that all religious experiences can be related to temporal lobe epilepsy?
Not at all. While studies have clearly shown a relationship between religious experience and temporal lobe epilepsy. This does not explain all religious experience by any means. Religious and spiritual experiences are highly complex, involving emotions, thoughts, sensations and behaviours. But scientists do believe that patients with temporal lobe epilepsy, who experience religious hallucinations may provide a valuable model in showing how certain types of religious experience effect the human brain
Are we 'hardwired' for god?
The term 'hardwired' suggests that we were purposefully designed that way. Neuroscience can't answer that question. However what it can say is that the brain does seem to predisposed towards a belief in spiritual and religious matters. The big mystery is how and why this came about.
Definitely an awesome find though. I'm digging up some of Dr. Persinger's more recent work on pubmed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now a few other (more off-topic) initial reactions:
-They hooked people up to a machine designed to alter brain function without telling them? Is that really . . . allowed? :o
-Dr. Persinger is selling do it yourself kits? ??? This almost made me dismiss the whole thing out of hand, but his publications appear to be legitimate peer-reviewed journal articles. Although I must admit I kinda want to buy a kit out of curiosity . . .
I think the "Essays in Neurotheology" website might not be entirely reputable, and may just be using Dr. Persinger's name.
-Why did they stop where they did? It seems to me that if you can reliably reproduce things like out-of-body experiences & spiritual phenomena then this is an unprecedented development in the field, and I'm not sure why more hasn't been done to follow up on it.
-
Can you go to heaven with sin? No.
Are we sinners? Yes.
Did Jesus Christ forgive our sins? Yes.
Can Jesus forgive our sins if we don't let him into our hearts? No.
So, if we believe in Jesus as our savior, can we go to heaven? Yes.
If we don't? No.
(Note that that's one of the main reasons Christianity is so evangelical. Believers want to save those that don't).
Personally I feel this is a core belief of Christianity.I may not agree with what certain denominations of it say, however, this is the most important thing to me.
For those who believe in this path to heaven, why do you feel it is right over another path, such as Islam? Is it the actions of the religion's followers or a reading of various holy books, or something else?
For those who believe there is no reward or punishment in choosing a faith, does it boil down to just a personal preference then, like what flavor of ice cream you like?
-
For those who believe there is no reward or punishment in choosing a faith, does it boil down to just a personal preference then, like what flavor of ice cream you like?
At least to me what someone believes is not so important as why they believe it.
The pharisees were the religious leaders at the time of Jesus, in the religion he followed, yet He was generally pretty harsh on them because they were acting pious to impress people, not because they thought it was right (Matthew ch 6, among others. You can probably find references in any of the gospels)
I believe that someone who is earnestly seeking truth will find God, whether in this life or after it's end.
Matthew 7:7-8
Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.
-
For those who believe in this path to heaven, why do you feel it is right over another path, such as Islam? Is it the actions of the religion's followers or a reading of various holy books, or something else?
I honestly cant tell you anything more than personal convictions. Ive always been hardheaded. I believe what I want to believe, and I never cared who thought otherwise. If I didnt agree with something someone said, then Id say it, and unless they had a good reason for it, I wouldnt back down. Ive never just followed something blindly because I always thought hat was a stupid thing to do. I've had a time when Ive walked away from God, and tried to have nothing to do with him, but. I had already had too many personal experiences with God to be able to convince myself that he wasnt there. I've seen things not only in my own life, but in some of my friends lives that dont believe the same as me to have any shadow of a doubt who God is. And with that conviction, comes what he says in his word.
Im not sure what I would be considered, I believe in the divinity of the bible, that it should be taken literally unless there is sufficient reasoning within the text to not do that. The parables are a good example, that they should be taken as just stories, because thats all that Jesus ever claimed they were, just stories with moral value. So Im very conservative in my view of the bible. On the flipside though, Ive gone to church in shorts and a sleeveless shirt, wore a hat in the sanctuary, obviously since I play elements I dont think video games are evil, and will play just about any game you give me. Ill listen to just about any music, and watch any show and have gotten into debates about things like this being evil with people from my own church. I dont cuss, and my wife dresses modestly in public places.
So Ive got a question for you ratcharmer. What would you consider me? Cause Im curious about what stereotype I would fit into.
-
Can you go to heaven with sin? No.
Are we sinners? Yes.
Did Jesus Christ forgive our sins? Yes.
Can Jesus forgive our sins if we don't let him into our hearts? No.
So, if we believe in Jesus as our savior, can we go to heaven? Yes.
If we don't? No.
(Note that that's one of the main reasons Christianity is so evangelical. Believers want to save those that don't).
Personally I feel this is a core belief of Christianity.I may not agree with what certain denominations of it say, however, this is the most important thing to me.
For those who believe in this path to heaven, why do you feel it is right over another path, such as Islam? Is it the actions of the religion's followers or a reading of various holy books, or something else?
For those who believe there is no reward or punishment in choosing a faith, does it boil down to just a personal preference then, like what flavor of ice cream you like?
Firstly, most paths declare themselves right over other paths through the paradox of competing views. For example, the statement “There is a God”, held by theists, and “There is no god,” held by atheists, cannot both be true. One must be true, the other not. So it is inherent that a belief in a particular path must, by its nature, also believe that another path is only partially correct, or else entirely wrong.
Thus, a Christian believes that a Muslim is incorrect (partially or fully depends on the view of the individual Christian), and it should be noted, vice versa.
Your second question relates to an individual’s faith. Some people hold their beliefs because it is what they grew up with, and have never had it challenged, or challenged it themselves. For those who have tested their belief, or had it tested, and retain it, it is usually a combination of a) the examples set by other followers, as you suggested b) the thoughts of other followers, either spoken aloud or written down c) their own personal spiritual experiences; moments of hearing the voice of God, feeling a spiritual presence, miraculous occurrences, etc.
In regard to your third question, I would suggest that if one adheres to a faith out of desire for reward, or out of fear from punishment, then they may have the wrong end of the stick, as it were. The promise of heaven and the fear of hell* have been much abused by many religious leaders and teachers, and have been mis-prioritised. If one adheres to a faith, one should do it because they wholeheartedly believe it is true. Did you vote Democrat because you were promised a cash bonus if you did, and a prison sentence if you didn’t? Or did you vote Democrat because you believed they were the “most right?” Bear in mind, you don’t have to believe they were “all right”, just the closest to “right” of all available options. This is much like a religion. In whatever belief you may hold, there will be elements of the system which you do not like, and may believe are just plain wrong. That doesn’t mean the core principle of the belief is rotten. It usually means that some fallible humans are involved in there somewhere.
* What the hell is Gracie Law doing here?
-
Firstly, most paths declare themselves right over other paths through the paradox of competing views. For example, the statement “There is a God”, held by theists, and “There is no god,” held by atheists, cannot both be true. One must be true, the other not. So it is inherent that a belief in a particular path must, by its nature, also believe that another path is only partially correct, or else entirely wrong.
Thus, a Christian believes that a Muslim is incorrect (partially or fully depends on the view of the individual Christian), and it should be noted, vice versa.
This is correct. But one is not born a Christian, Muslim, or atheist, one must determine which is correct. In order to choose you have to view the other options and determine they are incorrect or just blindly pick one. So, my question was specific--what in the Islamic faith is wrong?
Your second question relates to an individual’s faith. Some people hold their beliefs because it is what they grew up with, and have never had it challenged, or challenged it themselves. For those who have tested their belief, or had it tested, and retain it, it is usually a combination of a) the examples set by other followers, as you suggested b) the thoughts of other followers, either spoken aloud or written down
You seem to have the idea that choosing a religion because of the examples or words of it followers is a valid reason. I say it is not. It is similar to following a religion because of reward/punishment. Imagine a person thinking "This religion doesn't make sense to me, but since all my friends are in it, I think I'll join the bandwagon."
c) their own personal spiritual experiences; moments of hearing the voice of God, feeling a spiritual presence, miraculous occurrences, etc.
In regards to these experiences, how do you know it is a divine presence and not just your mind playing tricks on you?
In regard to your third question, I would suggest that if one adheres to a faith out of desire for reward, or out of fear from punishment, then they may have the wrong end of the stick, as it were. The promise of heaven and the fear of hell* have been much abused by many religious leaders and teachers, and have been mis-prioritised. If one adheres to a faith, one should do it because they wholeheartedly believe it is true. Did you vote Democrat because you were promised a cash bonus if you did, and a prison sentence if you didn’t? Or did you vote Democrat because you believed they were the “most right?” Bear in mind, you don’t have to believe they were “all right”, just the closest to “right” of all available options. This is much like a religion. In whatever belief you may hold, there will be elements of the system which you do not like, and may believe are just plain wrong. That doesn’t mean the core principle of the belief is rotten. It usually means that some fallible humans are involved in there somewhere.
I think some people may feel trapped and don't explore other options because of this risk.
Jack: Are you crazy... Is that your problem?
-
In regards to these experiences, how do you know it is a divine presence and not just your mind playing tricks on you?
How do you define real? If real is what you can feel, smell, taste and see, then 'real' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain
You can either accept something or you can deny it. All of life boils down to this, and that is how we are defined. When God speaks, you can either choose to listen, or deny it and say its your imagination. The craziest thing in the world to me was one day I jumped out of a car the way home from a school concert (too long to tell the whole story, basically I was really upset), and walked the rest of the way home. I could hear footsteps right next to me the entire time, plain as day. That was all the proof I needed for Gods existence, and proof that he will never leave nor forsake me. The old prayer, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of doubt, I will fear no evil for are know he is with me, became very real to me that night.
I could deny those footsteps, and say my mind was playing tricks on me, but I know that's not true.
Thats what life ends p being at its source. How you translate your everyday life. Do you see accident, or do you see providence? I've seen too many coincidences to deny providence.
-
You know that famous poem, Footsteps in the sand or somesuch? Well I had the same experience as the protagonist in that. I used to think I heard God, but I realise now that I only ever heard him at emotionally charged times, like when a church is in full swing, and even then it was never as clear as the experience you describe. But once I began to have my first doubts, I never heard from him again in any way, shape or form. Other's experience may differ, but that was mine.
-
That is just one of several personal experiences. Some people can get all the proof they would ever need, but just deny it. I had a friend, never was strong in the lord, and was going through a very tough time. Then in a dream, James 4:7 appeared to her. Not the whole verse, just the reference, and she turned to it. Says Submit yourself to God, resist the devil, and he will flee from you. It turned her life around. For a while at least. Her faith left her eventually. My point is that in my view, God will show you enough for you to have a reason to believe, and then leave it up to you. and yeah, I remember that poem. My sister collects them. They are inspirational, no matter your beliefs that much is undeniable. My experience reminded me of that as well.
-
@Bluepriest: I'd say you fit somewhere in the moderate to conservative Christian range, if that's what you're asking. I usually try to avoid using stereotypes (at least consciously) though, as they often cause more misunderstanding than they prevent. People are people, and many of the groups we categorize ourselves into are largely arbitrary.
@Innominate:
Is this the poem you're referring to?
Footprints in the Sand
One night I dreamed I was walking along the beach with the Lord.
Many scenes from my life flashed across the sky.
In each scene I noticed footprints in the sand.
Sometimes there were two sets of footprints,
other times there were one set of footprints.
This bothered me because I noticed
that during the low periods of my life,
when I was suffering from
anguish, sorrow or defeat,
I could see only one set of footprints.
So I said to the Lord,
"You promised me Lord,
that if I followed you,
you would walk with me always.
But I have noticed that during
the most trying periods of my life
there have only been one
set of footprints in the sand.
Why, when I needed you most,
you have not been there for me?"
The Lord replied,
"The times when you have
seen only one set of footprints,
is when I carried you."
@smuglapse:
Bluepriest said it quite well, but if it's okay I'd like to re-iterate since I feel like this has come up a couple times.
Basically, with anything I experience I can either assume that what my senses are telling me is reasonably accurate, or I could assume that my perceptions are wrong in some way. Most people make this decision without even thinking about it.
When I sit down to eat dinner tonight, it is entirely possible that my mind is playing some sort of trick on me and what I perceive as a plate of delicious pasta is actually a pile of live worms, or moldy socks. This will not discourage me from enjoying my meal, not because it is impossible (my brother has had encounters with a mental patient who keeps eating litter and cigarette butts) but because if I begin discounting my own perceptions of the world, then I have no basis whatsoever left by which to make decisions. Heck, I can't even tell if I am making decisions at that point.
So I'll just enjoy my delicious meal of moldy socks.
-
How do you define real? If real is what you can feel, smell, taste and see, then 'real' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain
That is my perception of reality, yes. I could be living in the Matrix, or dreaming all of reality, but regardless there are rules by which this reality is governed and I don't expect the Earth to stop spinning or for giant mutant ants to start reaking havoc. If you allow for a god to be causing footsteps next to you, why do you not allow for gremlins to be hacking the electrical grid or fairies causing deer to run in front of your car? Or do you also believe in those things, as well? I sincerely do not see a difference between the two.
because if I begin discounting my own perceptions of the world, then I have no basis whatsoever left by which to make decisions. Heck, I can't even tell if I am making decisions at that point.
Of course you can discount your perceptions and continue to function, make decisions, and live your life. You just have to put it in perspective.
You see a pencil in a glass full of water and the pencil appears broken, you pull it out and it appears straight and whole. You don't think "my eyes have deceived me and I can no longer trust them for gathering data." Your understanding of physics allows you to comprehend what is happening and adjust your conception accordingly.
It's the same if I lose my keys in my apartment, I don't think "some mysterious force has entered my abode and stolen or hidden my keys." I realize my memory is fallible and then I use a logical approach to finding my keys.
You all may have already seen this video or something similar, but I find it very thought-provoking:
-
Firstly, most paths declare themselves right over other paths through the paradox of competing views. For example, the statement “There is a God”, held by theists, and “There is no god,” held by atheists, cannot both be true. One must be true, the other not. So it is inherent that a belief in a particular path must, by its nature, also believe that another path is only partially correct, or else entirely wrong.
Thus, a Christian believes that a Muslim is incorrect (partially or fully depends on the view of the individual Christian), and it should be noted, vice versa.
This is correct. But one is not born a Christian, Muslim, or atheist, one must determine which is correct. In order to choose you have to view the other options and determine they are incorrect or just blindly pick one. So, my question was specific--what in the Islamic faith is wrong?
It specifically depends on whom you are asking. Ask a Muslim, they will reply, “Nothing”. Ask a Christian, they will say, “Muslims view Jesus as a prophet, not the son of God.” Ask an atheist, they will – or may – reply, “Everything.”
What I was trying to say is that usually, one selects a faith because that faith is, to them, most right, rather than selecting a faith as a default because another faith is more wrong. As a non-Muslim, what do you believe is wrong with Islam?
Your second question relates to an individual’s faith. Some people hold their beliefs because it is what they grew up with, and have never had it challenged, or challenged it themselves. For those who have tested their belief, or had it tested, and retain it, it is usually a combination of a) the examples set by other followers, as you suggested b) the thoughts of other followers, either spoken aloud or written down
You seem to have the idea that choosing a religion because of the examples or words of it followers is a valid reason. I say it is not. It is similar to following a religion because of reward/punishment. Imagine a person thinking "This religion doesn't make sense to me, but since all my friends are in it, I think I'll join the bandwagon."
Two quick points on this – I used the word “combination”, as ideally, a view should be held because it DOES make sense to them, through writings and testimonies of others, in addition to the examples set by those sharing that view.
And secondly, those examples of others should not be peer pressure or conformity, but living testaments. If someone says, “I’m an avid Scientologist, and look at my life – it’s falling apart!”, you may begin to question whether the governing standards of that life are really worth paying attention to. Conversely, if someone says that they are an Orthodox Jew, and their family life seems loving, stable and supportive, you may become curious as to why. The “what’s your secret?” and “I’ll have what she’s having” impulses.
Really, it’s backing up words with action, and as humans, it’s what we expect to see from anyone making a claim, whether is religion, politics, or new Whizzo floor polish, with added spiff molecules for that deep-down clean!
Incidentally, just apply these philosophies to yourself for a moment, to see if I am talking nonsense or not. Whatever your own view may be, did you first receive it, and now currently maintain it, through theory alone, or following others alone, or a combination of the two? And whenever you encounter something new, do you accept testimony alone before you get involved, or do you like to see examples as well?
c) their own personal spiritual experiences; moments of hearing the voice of God, feeling a spiritual presence, miraculous occurrences, etc.
In regards to these experiences, how do you know it is a divine presence and not just your mind playing tricks on you?
That’s a very specific question, and would need to be asked to each individual, over each instance of supposed spiritual intervention. And it is hard to answer. Some occurrences really may be coincidence, or the mind playing tricks. Others… may be something metaphysical. But to take a wider view, it will also depend on how credulous or skeptical the individual is.
For example, a particular person may hear a click, once, during a phone conversation, and exclaim, “The phones are bugged! The Government is monitoring me!” Another person may notice a black van, driven by two men with earpieces, which seems to be driving three cars behind them everywhere they go for six months, and say, “Wow, what an extraordinary series of coincidences.”
Two extreme examples, at opposite ends of the spectrum, but I have met both kinds of people, with regard to views on spiritual intervention, or miracles. Or aliens. Or ghosts.
In regard to your third question, I would suggest that if one adheres to a faith out of desire for reward, or out of fear from punishment, then they may have the wrong end of the stick, as it were. The promise of heaven and the fear of hell have been much abused by many religious leaders and teachers, and have been mis-prioritised. If one adheres to a faith, one should do it because they wholeheartedly believe it is true. Did you vote Democrat because you were promised a cash bonus if you did, and a prison sentence if you didn’t? Or did you vote Democrat because you believed they were the “most right?” Bear in mind, you don’t have to believe they were “all right”, just the closest to “right” of all available options. This is much like a religion. In whatever belief you may hold, there will be elements of the system which you do not like, and may believe are just plain wrong. That doesn’t mean the core principle of the belief is rotten. It usually means that some fallible humans are involved in there somewhere.
I think some people may feel trapped and don't explore other options because of this risk.
Be careful. This looks like a gross generalisation. Oh, I don’t doubt there are people who feel trapped by their views, and fear risk. In fact, I would dare to venture my own sweeping statement, to say that most humans do fear, to one degree or the other, the unknown.
But I would recommend specific examples in this kind of thinking. If you know someone, or multiple someones, whom your statement applies to (and know them, not just know of them), talk about them, and your experiences with them. It will give your views a lot more weight.
How do you define real? If real is what you can feel, smell, taste and see, then 'real' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain
That is my perception of reality, yes. I could be living in the Matrix, or dreaming all of reality, but regardless there are rules by which this reality is governed and I don't expect the Earth to stop spinning or for giant mutant ants to start reaking havoc. If you allow for a god to be causing footsteps next to you, why do you not allow for gremlins to be hacking the electrical grid or fairies causing deer to run in front of your car? Or do you also believe in those things, as well? I sincerely do not see a difference between the two.
Again, be very careful, my friend. You have inadvertently strayed into even more dangerous territory. The spiritual encounters of people are often some of their most intimate memories, held close to their hearts, and even if you do believe they are poppycock, you should be very diplomatic about your assessment of them, or risk mortally insulting them.
And do you really, really not see the difference between a deity causing an unseen sound, and the interference of gremlins and faeries? Without subscribing to any view, I can already see a very big difference between them. One is a possible circumstance relating to a number of different faiths, believed in cumulatively by the majority of the world’s inhabitants, the other two are clear inventions of folk tales and children’s stories. I am not saying the God explanation is true, but I am saying that compared to the others, it is far more likely to be true.
I only add this caution, and I do so with respect, because it is a brief moment where patronisation has entered what is otherwise a clear and enlightened discussion.
As to the other point, and reference to the Matrix, it is actually a common question and theme running through most philosophy – the definition of “reality”. Buddhist thought speculates on life as a dream, and asks, “Who is dreaming us now?” French philosopher Rene Descartes pursued the concept of existence, and found that the material world was insufficiently reliable, and that the only undeniable truth he could claim was Cogito Ergo Sum, or, I think, therefore I am. And, as used here, The Matrix is a modern exploration of the fluid nature of reality, and our perceptions of it. It is a theme which strikes a chord with many, as we see numerous examples of it, perhaps most recently with Inception.
This world may indeed be no more than what we encounter in it. Then again, this material universe may only be one layer of something deeper. Of course, neither you nor I expect giant mutant ants, but if there really is more to this existence than meets the eye, when the outside breaks in, or we break out, we are going to be rather surprised by what we did not expect.
“I was born ready.”
-
So, my question was specific--what in the Islamic faith is wrong?
It specifically depends on whom you are asking. Ask a Muslim, they will reply, “Nothing”. Ask a Christian, they will say, “Muslims view Jesus as a prophet, not the son of God.” Ask an atheist, they will – or may – reply, “Everything.”
What I was trying to say is that usually, one selects a faith because that faith is, to them, most right, rather than selecting a faith as a default because another faith is more wrong. As a non-Muslim, what do you believe is wrong with Islam?
I'm asking anyone who is reading who is not currently a Muslim, why they are not. As for myself, I see Islam the same as Christianity, and all other religions. I think this quote from Richard Dawkins says it best "We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
Your second question relates to an individual’s faith. Some people hold their beliefs because it is what they grew up with, and have never had it challenged, or challenged it themselves. For those who have tested their belief, or had it tested, and retain it, it is usually a combination of a) the examples set by other followers, as you suggested b) the thoughts of other followers, either spoken aloud or written down
You seem to have the idea that choosing a religion because of the examples or words of it followers is a valid reason. I say it is not. It is similar to following a religion because of reward/punishment. Imagine a person thinking "This religion doesn't make sense to me, but since all my friends are in it, I think I'll join the bandwagon."
Two quick points on this – I used the word “combination”, as ideally, a view should be held because it DOES make sense to them, through writings and testimonies of others, in addition to the examples set by those sharing that view.
And secondly, those examples of others should not be peer pressure or conformity, but living testaments. If someone says, “I’m an avid Scientologist, and look at my life – it’s falling apart!”, you may begin to question whether the governing standards of that life are really worth paying attention to. Conversely, if someone says that they are an Orthodox Jew, and their family life seems loving, stable and supportive, you may become curious as to why. The “what’s your secret?” and “I’ll have what she’s having” impulses.
This seems to be a utilitarian argument for religion. Are you suggesting that no matter what the belief, if the outcome is good (an enriched life), the belief is a worthy one?
Incidentally, just apply these philosophies to yourself for a moment, to see if I am talking nonsense or not. Whatever your own view may be, did you first receive it, and now currently maintain it, through theory alone, or following others alone, or a combination of the two? And whenever you encounter something new, do you accept testimony alone before you get involved, or do you like to see examples as well?
I came to my current thinking through "theorizing" I guess you can call it, lying awake at night when I was younger trying to make sense out of the world. I came to the conclusion that if people are forced to gamble for their salvation (thanks ratcharmer for the apt phrase) then a god wasn't worth worshiping. I had these thoughts on my own because through other experiences I had learned that if you find something important it might be safer to keep it to yourself. Being that it is my whole family is religious, I was afraid that I might be ostracized or punished in some way. As I grew I learned more critical thinking and became more independent to the point where I felt safe expressing my views and also in confirming them against reality. I find it amazing that I once thought there was a god and I wonder how I can help people come to the same realization.
As far as new encounters, I do a quick cost/benefit analysis before deciding on whether testimony or more is needed. If someone says, "hey, this ice cream tastes great", then I consider what is the worst that can happen--I could have a bad taste in my mouth. So I don't need a study done before I give it a try. However, if someone says ,"hey, this ice cream allows me to float off of skyscrapers", well then I would need considerable proof--scientific studies, video evidence, etc.
I think some people may feel trapped and don't explore other options because of this risk.
Be careful. This looks like a gross generalisation. Oh, I don’t doubt there are people who feel trapped by their views, and fear risk. In fact, I would dare to venture my own sweeping statement, to say that most humans do fear, to one degree or the other, the unknown.
But I would recommend specific examples in this kind of thinking. If you know someone, or multiple someones, whom your statement applies to (and know them, not just know of them), talk about them, and your experiences with them. It will give your views a lot more weight.
I guess my own example as stated above applies somewhat. Luckily, I was young, had the time to think about it, was able to hold a conversation with myself, and did not rely on debating others to figure it all out. When the internet came about, (what a wonderful invention!), I was then able to confirm my understanding. There was vast volumes of data I can read through and hear all about different views and learn basically anything that anybody in the world was willing to put out there. I still have this enormous fascination with the internet, to the point where some may claim addiction. I am pretty much a recluse when it comes to anything else.
I have tried to have this and other debates with my mother, but she tries desperately to avoid it and can not explain why she believes what she does. I am not a parent myself, but I could imagine that if one were to teach their children in a religion (worldview and morals included), and then come to the realization it was all wrong, and that they had set their children back and made judgments on their children based on wrong morals--that would be psychologically impossible. I think for someone in my mother's position, it is too late. There is a fear or basic instinct to not change.
I could be living in the Matrix, or dreaming all of reality, but regardless there are rules by which this reality is governed and I don't expect the Earth to stop spinning or for giant mutant ants to start reaking havoc. If you allow for a god to be causing footsteps next to you, why do you not allow for gremlins to be hacking the electrical grid or fairies causing deer to run in front of your car? Or do you also believe in those things, as well? I sincerely do not see a difference between the two.
Again, be very careful, my friend. You have inadvertently strayed into even more dangerous territory. The spiritual encounters of people are often some of their most intimate memories, held close to their hearts, and even if you do believe they are poppycock, you should be very diplomatic about your assessment of them, or risk mortally insulting them.
And do you really, really not see the difference between a deity causing an unseen sound, and the interference of gremlins and faeries? Without subscribing to any view, I can already see a very big difference between them. One is a possible circumstance relating to a number of different faiths, believed in cumulatively by the majority of the world’s inhabitants, the other two are clear inventions of folk tales and children’s stories. I am not saying the God explanation is true, but I am saying that compared to the others, it is far more likely to be true.
I only add this caution, and I do so with respect, because it is a brief moment where patronisation has entered what is otherwise a clear and enlightened discussion.
I can understand what you are saying here, but I could also turn that statement around on you. If you see a difference between them, then you have already discounted gremlins and faeries. There are people to this day (and you can find their testimony all over the web) that do believe in faeries. There was a time when that was a wide spread belief. There was once a time when slavery was justified by the majority of people. If you say that belief in faeries is not as likely to be true as a deity are you not insulting those who believe in faeries?
I am trying to be as honest as I can in this conversation and I am trying to find out why people believe the things they do. I am not trying to make anybody pissed off or feel inferior. When you ask if I really, really do not see the difference, I am saying that I do not. If you say that a majority of the world believing in something lends some creedence to the belief, I have to say you are wrong. Look at the history of the world, and you will see countless ideas that were held by the majority of people at the time as being right and that we now know are wrong. If there is something more to that argument, then I am not recognizing it, so please point it out for me.
In this conversation you are seeing why I hold the view that I do, or at least I hope you are. If something doesn't make sense logically to me, I will say so. You can't say some parts of the conversation are immune to logic or discussion, because then we are no longer examining ideas, but just two TVs turned on and pointed at each other. If your intention is to minimize venom or offensiveness, then great. What I get offended at is when someone asserts something as true without rationality behind it--that is the textbook definition of bigotry. Since we are all still here conversing, that means we are all open to learning from each other. So when I say something that looks like my intent is to belittle or incite--why I am actually saying it is because that is how I understand it to be.
Gracie: I'd go with you but...
Jack: I know, there's a problem with your face.
-
I've broken this up into multiple posts, simply because I was afraid of it becoming a monster. Hopefully, it will also allow anyone to comment on a single point more easily.
So, my question was specific--what in the Islamic faith is wrong?
It specifically depends on whom you are asking. Ask a Muslim, they will reply, “Nothing”. Ask a Christian, they will say, “Muslims view Jesus as a prophet, not the son of God.” Ask an atheist, they will – or may – reply, “Everything.”
What I was trying to say is that usually, one selects a faith because that faith is, to them, most right, rather than selecting a faith as a default because another faith is more wrong. As a non-Muslim, what do you believe is wrong with Islam?
I'm asking anyone who is reading who is not currently a Muslim, why they are not. As for myself, I see Islam the same as Christianity, and all other religions. I think this quote from Richard Dawkins says it best "We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
I would slightly disagree with this Dawkins point. I would classify an atheist perspective as an outright casting off of a view, and many believers of a faith do not have that perspective to other faiths. For example, Jews, Christians and Muslims are all “children of Abraham”, and all believe in the same God, but name Him differently, and ascribe different words and actions to him. I would not think that any one of these faiths would throw away the entirety of the other two, but be more precise in what was agreed and disagreed. A scalpel, rather than a broadsword.
Of course, there are some faiths which are completely incompatible with others. Theravada Buddhism is, technically speaking, an atheist religion, and is incompatible with a monotheistic view, while the pantheism of Hinduism is also fairly irreconcilable. But for the most part, I believe that this quote by Dawkins illustrates the man’s own preconceptions more than anything else.
Specifically in terms of MY perspective on ISLAM, I do not believe in it, as the fact that the Koran wholly comes from one man, the Prophet Mohammed, increases the chances of human error becoming involved. I also look at the examples of its followers, and even steering well-clear of a reactionary comment about terrorism, I still see a widespread culture of inequality between men and women. There seems to me too much in Islam which directly benefits certain people within the faith, which then in turn smacks of human invention, rather than divine inspiration.
All that said, I am not an ex-Muslim, nor a Muslim scholar. I will be the first to admit my own deficiencies of Islamic study, and prepare to stand corrected on any errors in my thinking. It is simply my reasoning for not being a Muslim.
-
You seem to have the idea that choosing a religion because of the examples or words of it followers is a valid reason. I say it is not. It is similar to following a religion because of reward/punishment. Imagine a person thinking "This religion doesn't make sense to me, but since all my friends are in it, I think I'll join the bandwagon."
Two quick points on this – I used the word “combination”, as ideally, a view should be held because it DOES make sense to them, through writings and testimonies of others, in addition to the examples set by those sharing that view.
And secondly, those examples of others should not be peer pressure or conformity, but living testaments. If someone says, “I’m an avid Scientologist, and look at my life – it’s falling apart!”, you may begin to question whether the governing standards of that life are really worth paying attention to. Conversely, if someone says that they are an Orthodox Jew, and their family life seems loving, stable and supportive, you may become curious as to why. The “what’s your secret?” and “I’ll have what she’s having” impulses.
This seems to be a utilitarian argument for religion. Are you suggesting that no matter what the belief, if the outcome is good (an enriched life), the belief is a worthy one?
No, I am saying that the proof is in the pudding.
If someone makes a claim, such as ‘this product is easy to use’, and you see someone apparently using it with ease, it gives credibility to the claim. If someone says, ‘this lifestyle philosophy will increase your happiness’, and you see someone living by that philosophy, and they are freaking miserable, it detracts from the claim.
It is the essential blend of theory and practice, thought and action. In an area such as faith, or social science, where conclusive proof in the theory cannot be produced via a machine, or laboratory process, the next best proof can be gained by a study of the species.
Incidentally, just apply these philosophies to yourself for a moment, to see if I am talking nonsense or not. Whatever your own view may be, did you first receive it, and now currently maintain it, through theory alone, or following others alone, or a combination of the two? And whenever you encounter something new, do you accept testimony alone before you get involved, or do you like to see examples as well?
I came to my current thinking through "theorizing" I guess you can call it, lying awake at night when I was younger trying to make sense out of the world. I came to the conclusion that if people are forced to gamble for their salvation (thanks ratcharmer for the apt phrase) then a god wasn't worth worshiping. I had these thoughts on my own because through other experiences I had learned that if you find something important it might be safer to keep it to yourself. Being that it is my whole family is religious, I was afraid that I might be ostracized or punished in some way. As I grew I learned more critical thinking and became more independent to the point where I felt safe expressing my views and also in confirming them against reality. I find it amazing that I once thought there was a god and I wonder how I can help people come to the same realization.
As far as new encounters, I do a quick cost/benefit analysis before deciding on whether testimony or more is needed. If someone says, "hey, this ice cream tastes great", then I consider what is the worst that can happen--I could have a bad taste in my mouth. So I don't need a study done before I give it a try. However, if someone says ,"hey, this ice cream allows me to float off of skyscrapers", well then I would need considerable proof--scientific studies, video evidence, etc.
I’m just curious for clarification; having missed ratcharmer’s use of the phrase, “gambling for salvation”, what do you mean by that?
Also, when you refer to keeping something important to yourself, did you mean something potentially controversial, or was there another meaning I have missed?
-
I think some people may feel trapped and don't explore other options because of this risk.
Be careful. This looks like a gross generalisation. Oh, I don’t doubt there are people who feel trapped by their views, and fear risk. In fact, I would dare to venture my own sweeping statement, to say that most humans do fear, to one degree or the other, the unknown.
But I would recommend specific examples in this kind of thinking. If you know someone, or multiple someones, whom your statement applies to (and know them, not just know of them), talk about them, and your experiences with them. It will give your views a lot more weight.
I guess my own example as stated above applies somewhat. Luckily, I was young, had the time to think about it, was able to hold a conversation with myself, and did not rely on debating others to figure it all out. When the internet came about, (what a wonderful invention!), I was then able to confirm my understanding. There was vast volumes of data I can read through and hear all about different views and learn basically anything that anybody in the world was willing to put out there. I still have this enormous fascination with the internet, to the point where some may claim addiction. I am pretty much a recluse when it comes to anything else.
I have tried to have this and other debates with my mother, but she tries desperately to avoid it and can not explain why she believes what she does. I am not a parent myself, but I could imagine that if one were to teach their children in a religion (worldview and morals included), and then come to the realization it was all wrong, and that they had set their children back and made judgments on their children based on wrong morals--that would be psychologically impossible. I think for someone in my mother's position, it is too late. There is a fear or basic instinct to not change.
Now this is perfect – you’ve made a statement about your personal testimony, as opposed to a vague person or group of people. Well done, you, for your advanced communication, and the courage to be personal online.
I completely understand the difficulties you may have had with your family; often, those closest to us are the most difficult to reach. If I could draw a cheeky parallel here, it was in Jesus’ home town that he actually had one of his worst receptions, as his extended family listened to him speak, and then said to one another, “That’s no great prophet! I saw him growing up, peeing in my rose bushes and throwing rocks on my roof with his friends.” Roughly speaking, anyway. It loses a bit in translation.
My mother-in-law is similarly difficult to debate with. She displays a strong degree of conflict avoidance, and so desperately tries to steer away from any topic which may be controversial, and papers over differences, with a general kind of “each to his own” philosophy. I am a parent myself, and I believe that more important than teaching my children what to think is teaching them how to think. That isn’t to say I’m not also imparting my own views; once again, I’m back to my earlier statements about theory and practice. I teach them a rule, or ideal, and then try to show them how I myself interpret, enact and pursue it. So of course, my lessons to them will be from my perspective, and my bias. But I don’t think there is anything to be ashamed of in that. I know that whatever I teach them, it will be tested on day, sooner or later. And depending on how well I have taught them to analyse and reflect will probably be a key factor in whether they abandon their philosophy up to that point, or else integrate it into their psyche even more strongly.
Parents, teachers or leaders who present a school of thought, and upon having it question, reply with “Because I told you to!” will never be truly successful in passing the seed along. It is like the difference between understanding the mechanics of quadratic equations, versus memorizing a list of answers by rote. One day, you may get thrown a curly question you haven’t seen before, and the whole thing begins to come unstuck.
I could be living in the Matrix, or dreaming all of reality, but regardless there are rules by which this reality is governed and I don't expect the Earth to stop spinning or for giant mutant ants to start reaking havoc. If you allow for a god to be causing footsteps next to you, why do you not allow for gremlins to be hacking the electrical grid or fairies causing deer to run in front of your car? Or do you also believe in those things, as well? I sincerely do not see a difference between the two.
Again, be very careful, my friend. You have inadvertently strayed into even more dangerous territory. The spiritual encounters of people are often some of their most intimate memories, held close to their hearts, and even if you do believe they are poppycock, you should be very diplomatic about your assessment of them, or risk mortally insulting them.
And do you really, really not see the difference between a deity causing an unseen sound, and the interference of gremlins and faeries? Without subscribing to any view, I can already see a very big difference between them. One is a possible circumstance relating to a number of different faiths, believed in cumulatively by the majority of the world’s inhabitants, the other two are clear inventions of folk tales and children’s stories. I am not saying the God explanation is true, but I am saying that compared to the others, it is far more likely to be true.
I only add this caution, and I do so with respect, because it is a brief moment where patronisation has entered what is otherwise a clear and enlightened discussion.
I can understand what you are saying here, but I could also turn that statement around on you. If you see a difference between them, then you have already discounted gremlins and faeries. There are people to this day (and you can find their testimony all over the web) that do believe in faeries. There was a time when that was a wide spread belief. There was once a time when slavery was justified by the majority of people. If you say that belief in faeries is not as likely to be true as a deity are you not insulting those who believe in faeries?
I am trying to be as honest as I can in this conversation and I am trying to find out why people believe the things they do. I am not trying to make anybody pissed off or feel inferior. When you ask if I really, really do not see the difference, I am saying that I do not. If you say that a majority of the world believing in something lends some creedence to the belief, I have to say you are wrong. Look at the history of the world, and you will see countless ideas that were held by the majority of people at the time as being right and that we now know are wrong. If there is something more to that argument, then I am not recognizing it, so please point it out for me.
In this conversation you are seeing why I hold the view that I do, or at least I hope you are. If something doesn't make sense logically to me, I will say so. You can't say some parts of the conversation are immune to logic or discussion, because then we are no longer examining ideas, but just two TVs turned on and pointed at each other. If your intention is to minimize venom or offensiveness, then great. What I get offended at is when someone asserts something as true without rationality behind it--that is the textbook definition of bigotry. Since we are all still here conversing, that means we are all open to learning from each other. So when I say something that looks like my intent is to belittle or incite--why I am actually saying it is because that is how I understand it to be.
Gracie: I'd go with you but...
Jack: I know, there's a problem with your face.
Oh, don’t get me wrong, my primary point was about delivery. I’m all for honesty – more of it, I cry! – but one should strive to deliver honesty with grace, humility, respect and tact. You can tell a fat person that they are fat, and you will be being honest, factually correct, and even possibly well-intentioned, but you will still probably hurt their feelings.
I’m afraid I do see a very big difference between gremlins, faeries and God. Yes, fey folk were once genuinely believed in, but mostly by credulous, simple folk, or earlier than that, by various animistic pagan faithful. I am not aware – although my awareness is limited enough to prevent me from stating it as a fact – of any present, genuine faiths which include gremlins and faeries, as we know them. Whereas many highly intelligent, clear-headed, enlightened people have professed to have a belief in God. In my comment, I was not stating the truth about one view or another, but rather, that one conclusion was far more likely than another.
It is possible to examine different views, subscribing to none of them yourself, and still state that one is more possible, or more likely, than another. Picture a crime scene, with a dead body, stab wound in the neck. As a detective, you may believe that it was actually a domestic dispute, and the killer was the spouse. Another detective theorises the killer was a burglar, surprised in the act, while a third officer claims it was actually a ninja. It is quite sensible for you, the detective, to retain your original theory, and still say that it is far more likely for the killer to be a burglar than a ninja. You are not compelled to say that because you don’t think it was either, they are both just as ridiculous as one another.
And yes, my chief goal previous was to minimize venom and offence, as I have unfortunately seen far too much of it here. Not by you, Smuglapse, I might quickly add, but by others. I do understand you are trying to be primarily honest and open; I don’t believe any offence you may cause would intentional. It is the inadvertent offence which trips us up, when we can make a statement that we have no problem with, but cuts another deeply in ways we may not be aware of.
We really shook the pillars of heaven, didn’t we, Wang?
-
I would slightly disagree with this Dawkins point. I would classify an atheist perspective as an outright casting off of a view, and many believers of a faith do not have that perspective to other faiths. For example, Jews, Christians and Muslims are all “children of Abraham”, and all believe in the same God, but name Him differently, and ascribe different words and actions to him. I would not think that any one of these faiths would throw away the entirety of the other two, but be more precise in what was agreed and disagreed. A scalpel, rather than a broadsword.
I hear this a lot, but I've never been convinced. If two people believe in the same thing, but have completely different beliefs about that thing, does it even make sense to say they believe in the same thing? And if we decide that they do indeed believe in the same thing, why is it limited to Jews, Christians and Muslims? Why don't we say that spiritualists and Satanists (LaVeyan; believes that they are god) believe in the same God? After all, if we don't decide what God they believe in based on their beliefs about it, what criterion do we use?
Do we define them to be the same if they all agree on it? What about people who disagree? Do we define them to be the same if they came from the same historical groups? Then everyone worships the same God if you go back far enough.
In my view, every group worships a different god that they call the same name.
-
Do we define them to be the same if they all agree on it? What about people who disagree? Do we define them to be the same if they came from the same historical groups? Then everyone worships the same God if you go back far enough.
Well, if those historical groups all believed in the same God but split on details somewhere, then yes, they do still believe in the same. For instance, the Torah is the first five books of the Old Testament. Jesus himself was Jewish, actually. The main difference between Judaism and Christianity is that Christians believe Jesus the messiah, Jews don't. We do, however, believe in the same God.
Furthermore, all three religions trace back to Abraham, and the Qu'ran also explains that the God of Christians and Jews (people of the book) is the same as Allah:
And do not dispute with the followers of the Book except by what is best, except those of them who act unjustly, and say: We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you, and our Allah and your Allah is One, and to Him do we submit.
So while the three religions may differ in detail, they all share belief in the one God.
-
If two people believe in the same thing, but have completely different beliefs about that thing, does it even make sense to say they believe in the same thing?
No. No, it doesn’t. But the point here is that these three faiths do not have completely different beliefs, but differing beliefs. A comparison would be the difference between communism and capitalism, and the difference between the Republican and Democrat parties. The difference between the first two is a complete difference, whereas the second two have differences over common ground. Compare the Republican party with the Chinese Communist Party of the 1950s, and suddenly the Republicans look a lot closer to the Democrats than they may do otherwise.
And if we decide that they do indeed believe in the same thing, why is it limited to Jews, Christians and Muslims? Why don't we say that spiritualists and Satanists (LaVeyan; believes that they are god) believe in the same God? After all, if we don't decide what God they believe in based on their beliefs about it, what criterion do we use?
The three faiths of Christianity, Judaism and Islam are often linked because they arose from a common ancestor and, as PuppyChow helpfully pointed out, even share an overlap of holy texts. Even from a classification perspective, they are similar in that they are monotheistic beliefs with a paternal God, as opposed to the pantheism of Hinduism, or animism of Shinto. It would be like asking, “Why are people always comparing BMW, Mercedes and Porsche?” They are all German automakers, and have more in common with one another than with Ford, or Toyota.
Do we define them to be the same if they all agree on it? What about people who disagree? Do we define them to be the same if they came from the same historical groups? Then everyone worships the same God if you go back far enough.
I must humbly beg your indulgence, but I’m afraid I don’t understand this point. Could you please rephrase it?
In my view, every group worships a different god that they call the same name.
Do you mean, in your view, everyone worships the same god with a different name? Otherwise, yes, every monotheistic religion does worship a different god with the same name – ‘god.’ But atheistic, polytheistic, pantheistic, animistic and burritoonastic religions do not.
-
If two people believe in the same thing, but have completely different beliefs about that thing, does it even make sense to say they believe in the same thing?
No. No, it doesn’t. But the point here is that these three faiths do not have completely different beliefs, but differing beliefs. A comparison would be the difference between communism and capitalism, and the difference between the Republican and Democrat parties. The difference between the first two is a complete difference, whereas the second two have differences over common ground. Compare the Republican party with the Chinese Communist Party of the 1950s, and suddenly the Republicans look a lot closer to the Democrats than they may do otherwise.
Fair enough. But how similar do their beliefs have to be for it to be the same God? If a hypothetical (and possibly crazy) Christian believes that Jesus was Zeus' son and Yahweh killed him in a fit of rage, does that mean he still believes in the same God?
And if we decide that they do indeed believe in the same thing, why is it limited to Jews, Christians and Muslims? Why don't we say that spiritualists and Satanists (LaVeyan; believes that they are god) believe in the same God? After all, if we don't decide what God they believe in based on their beliefs about it, what criterion do we use?
The three faiths of Christianity, Judaism and Islam are often linked because they arose from a common ancestor and, as PuppyChow helpfully pointed out, even share an overlap of holy texts. Even from a classification perspective, they are similar in that they are monotheistic beliefs with a paternal God, as opposed to the pantheism of Hinduism, or animism of Shinto. It would be like asking, “Why are people always comparing BMW, Mercedes and Porsche?” They are all German automakers, and have more in common with one another than with Ford, or Toyota.
I suppose common ancestry plus common beliefs is good enough, but I have philosophical problems with it. Similar to what I said above, how common does ancestry have to be to be the same deity? Almost all current religions are descended from either ancestor or animal worship if you go back far enough; the Jews used to be polytheists, for one thing. The early books of the Pentateuch use the word Elohim, which is a plural form for the word "god" (not God, which is Yhwh or Yahweh) as a holdover from that period of their religious understanding. The Israelites were using it to mean a singular god around the time that Genesis was written (probably were at least), but the language nonetheless reflects the origin of their belief.
Do we define them to be the same if they all agree on it? What about people who disagree? Do we define them to be the same if they came from the same historical groups? Then everyone worships the same God if you go back far enough.
I must humbly beg your indulgence, but I’m afraid I don’t understand this point. Could you please rephrase it?
If a number of groups with different beliefs all agree that they worship the same god, does that make it true? Similarly, if everyone else agrees but one group doesn't, who gets the casting vote? (imagine the schoolyard taunts, "You worship our god!", "Nuh-uh!") And if historical precedent is the deciding factor, then where in history do we draw the line? All humans came out of Africa, where we most likely all worshipped our ancestors or animals (or maybe the elements). Does that mean that everyone who subscribes to a religion worships the same deity?
In my view, every group worships a different god that they call the same name.
Do you mean, in your view, everyone worships the same god with a different name? Otherwise, yes, every monotheistic religion does worship a different god with the same name – ‘god.’ But atheistic, polytheistic, pantheistic, animistic and burritoonastic religions do not.
The latter. I hold that even people who say they worship the same god do not in fact do so if they disagree about its character. Like with the analogy of the blind men and the elephant, not one of them gets it right; none of them are worshipping the same deity, nor are any of them worshipping the actual deity (in the analogy at least). We unfortunately don't have a prayer post office, where people who pray to "The God that smites gays but not adulterers" and the ones that pray to "The God that smites adulterers but not gays" get their prayers redirected to "The actual God, who may or may not smite gays or adulterers". It's probably a bad way of putting it actually, but my point is that conceptual entities are too varied to be "reached" by approximations.
While with physical entities (say, a house or a person) we can ignore conflicting details and "deliver to the right address/name", we have no such luxury with conceptual entities; there is no set of qualities which uniquely defines a concept. There are so many possible details to differ that we can't figure out the closest match.
Imagine we have an apple in a box, and three men, Adam, Bob and Carl are betting on what is inside. Adam says, "I bet it is red, tasty and sharp". Bob says "I bet it is blue, tasty and round". Carl says "I bet it is red, bland and round". Assuming for the sake of argument that apples are red, tasty and round, who wins the bet? Each of them is right about two qualities and wrong about one. Do we arbitrarily assume that some qualities (say, colour and taste) are more important, and decide that anybody who gets those correct wins? The problem is that any such decision is open to disagreement. So when people say that Judaism and Christianity are close enough to be worshipping the same God, somebody (say, Fred Phelps) disagrees. And you can't resolve such a disagreement, because there is no external logic to deciding what is more important, only what beliefs (internally) say is.
Put more simply, there is no analogue to an email address or a fingerprint for a concept. We can't externally pin down one unique identifier (even a set of partial identifiers which, all up, give the full identity), nor can we quantify how similar or dissimilar two concepts are. There is just no way of deciding whether two ideas are or are not "the same" beyond simply saying so.
-
The latter. I hold that even people who say they worship the same god do not in fact do so if they disagree about its character. Like with the analogy of the blind men and the elephant, not one of them gets it right; none of them are worshipping the same deity, nor are any of them worshipping the actual deity (in the analogy at least). We unfortunately don't have a prayer post office, where people who pray to "The God that smites gays but not adulterers" and the ones that pray to "The God that smites adulterers but not gays" get their prayers redirected to "The actual God, who may or may not smite gays or adulterers". It's probably a bad way of putting it actually, but my point is that conceptual entities are too varied to be "reached" by approximations.
While with physical entities (say, a house or a person) we can ignore conflicting details and "deliver to the right address/name", we have no such luxury with conceptual entities; there is no set of qualities which uniquely defines a concept. There are so many possible details to differ that we can't figure out the closest match.
Imagine we have an apple in a box, and three men, Adam, Bob and Carl are betting on what is inside. Adam says, "I bet it is red, tasty and sharp". Bob says "I bet it is blue, tasty and round". Carl says "I bet it is red, bland and round". Assuming for the sake of argument that apples are red, tasty and round, who wins the bet? Each of them is right about two qualities and wrong about one. Do we arbitrarily assume that some qualities (say, colour and taste) are more important, and decide that anybody who gets those correct wins? The problem is that any such decision is open to disagreement. So when people say that Judaism and Christianity are close enough to be worshipping the same God, somebody (say, Fred Phelps) disagrees. And you can't resolve such a disagreement, because there is no external logic to deciding what is more important, only what beliefs (internally) say is.
Put more simply, there is no analogue to an email address or a fingerprint for a concept. We can't externally pin down one unique identifier (even a set of partial identifiers which, all up, give the full identity), nor can we quantify how similar or dissimilar two concepts are. There is just no way of deciding whether two ideas are or are not "the same" beyond simply saying so.
I confess I'm not entirely sure I understand what you're getting at here. I'll try to address the question as best I can though.
Firstly, you're assuming God is a purely conceptual entity, i.e. God doesn't actually exist. Thus if this is intended as evidence against religion then it's sort of circular reasoning. If it's a question about beliefs then it's one that someone who thinks God is more than just an idea (a theist) will have a difficult time answering, since from their perspective the dilemma doesn't exist.
Second, while it would be extremely daunting to say, try and write a computer program to determine how similar two ideas are using a mathematical algorithm, it is still entirely possible to group religions based on what they believe. Take the three following ideas:
1) the Christain concept of God
2) the Islamic concept of God (Allah)
3) a cosmic invisible pink unicorn
If you surveyed people about how similar each of these three ideas are to one another you would pretty much always get the same response. That is, that Islamic and Christian beliefs are much closer to one another than they are to invisible unicorns.
What you have pointed out is more of a limitation on mathematical analysis than saying anything about religion. Unless of course I misunderstood.
-
You seem to have the idea that choosing a religion because of the examples or words of it followers is a valid reason. I say it is not. It is similar to following a religion because of reward/punishment. Imagine a person thinking "This religion doesn't make sense to me, but since all my friends are in it, I think I'll join the bandwagon."
Two quick points on this – I used the word “combination”, as ideally, a view should be held because it DOES make sense to them, through writings and testimonies of others, in addition to the examples set by those sharing that view.
And secondly, those examples of others should not be peer pressure or conformity, but living testaments. If someone says, “I’m an avid Scientologist, and look at my life – it’s falling apart!”, you may begin to question whether the governing standards of that life are really worth paying attention to. Conversely, if someone says that they are an Orthodox Jew, and their family life seems loving, stable and supportive, you may become curious as to why. The “what’s your secret?” and “I’ll have what she’s having” impulses.
This seems to be a utilitarian argument for religion. Are you suggesting that no matter what the belief, if the outcome is good (an enriched life), the belief is a worthy one?
No, I am saying that the proof is in the pudding.
If someone makes a claim, such as ‘this product is easy to use’, and you see someone apparently using it with ease, it gives credibility to the claim. If someone says, ‘this lifestyle philosophy will increase your happiness’, and you see someone living by that philosophy, and they are freaking miserable, it detracts from the claim.
It is the essential blend of theory and practice, thought and action. In an area such as faith, or social science, where conclusive proof in the theory cannot be produced via a machine, or laboratory process, the next best proof can be gained by a study of the species.
I'm not understanding this line of reasoning. If I saw a group in society that are always happy or enjoying the good life and I asked "what's your secret?" and the response was "we all believe in Santa Claus", I can't force myself to start believing in Santa Claus in an attempt at a similarly happy life. Sure, I could pretend like I held the belief or I could read up on the "naughty or nice" list and study how to be nice. And then in studying, find that following these set of morals actually lead to a happy life.
But becoming part of the group and following guidelines to a successful life would not cause me to start believing in the invisible being.
-
I’m just curious for clarification; having missed ratcharmer’s use of the phrase, “gambling for salvation”, what do you mean by that?
ratcharmer used that phrase when responding to this post:
Many different religions, only one can be correct
I am not familiar with the "official" name for this argument or have the proper analogy off-hand but I will give you my account.
If you are familiar with the game show Deal or No Deal this will be rather easy to follow. The "reward" for following mono-theistic religions is entry into Heaven and this can be symbolized by the case that has the million dollars in it. In this analogy each case you can pick is a different religion and only one can contain the $$, for there can only be one objective truth. However, unlike the game show, if you choose incorrectly instead of going home with a consolation prize or nothing at all, you will actually receive a punishment in the form of eternal torment. This analogy is not perfect, of course, because some religions do not have a heavenly reward or hellish punishment for following their creed. In some religions, you may be reincarnated as a roach, cow, or an enlightened individual depending on how close you follow their religious path. What I am trying to illustrate is that for almost all religions if you pick their case you will have a generally good outcome, where as if you don't you will have a generally bad outcome.
When playing the game there is no way to decipher which case holds the $$. What you have before you are rows of exactly identical cases. The only difference between them are numbers used for naming your selection. Only after opening a case will you know if you made the right decision. When choosing religions it is the same way. Each religion has its holy book, historical accounts, wizened elders, and masses of followers. They each may argue that their book is older, or their followers more numerous or more intelligent, but each also say that there is no way to prove theirs does or does not contain the $$. Because of this until you have chosen a path, walked it, and finished your mortal life you will never know if you were correct in your beliefs.
How do contestants on Deal or No Deal pick the right case? Luck. How do you pick the correct religion? Luck.
I say, if there was a creator that based the outcome of your afterlife on luck, then that is a vile creature not worth consideration, let alone worship.
-
I’m afraid I do see a very big difference between gremlins, faeries and God. Yes, fey folk were once genuinely believed in, but mostly by credulous, simple folk, or earlier than that, by various animistic pagan faithful. I am not aware – although my awareness is limited enough to prevent me from stating it as a fact – of any present, genuine faiths which include gremlins and faeries, as we know them. Whereas many highly intelligent, clear-headed, enlightened people have professed to have a belief in God. In my comment, I was not stating the truth about one view or another, but rather, that one conclusion was far more likely than another.
It is possible to examine different views, subscribing to none of them yourself, and still state that one is more possible, or more likely, than another. Picture a crime scene, with a dead body, stab wound in the neck. As a detective, you may believe that it was actually a domestic dispute, and the killer was the spouse. Another detective theorises the killer was a burglar, surprised in the act, while a third officer claims it was actually a ninja. It is quite sensible for you, the detective, to retain your original theory, and still say that it is far more likely for the killer to be a burglar than a ninja. You are not compelled to say that because you don’t think it was either, they are both just as ridiculous as one another.
And yes, my chief goal previous was to minimize venom and offence, as I have unfortunately seen far too much of it here. Not by you, Smuglapse, I might quickly add, but by others. I do understand you are trying to be primarily honest and open; I don’t believe any offence you may cause would intentional. It is the inadvertent offence which trips us up, when we can make a statement that we have no problem with, but cuts another deeply in ways we may not be aware of.
We really shook the pillars of heaven, didn’t we, Wang?
As far as belief in fairies here is a testimonial (http://www.experienceproject.com/stories/Believe-In-Fairies-And-Magic/207701) I found in the first result of googling "belief in fairies".
And as far as likelihood--why is one mega-powerful invisible being more likely to exist than several quasi-powerful invisible beings? You are trying to make a statement of preference into a fact. That analogy is way off base. The way you ascribe fairy-belief to the ninja-killing scenario is the same way I ascribe god-belief to the ninja-killing scenario. Maybe through understanding this, you can see why many atheists do condescend or belittle the theist's beliefs. Your argument would be very hurtful to the woman with the fairy testimonial.
Christianity, Islam, and Judaism
If these religions all believe in the same god, will they all be meeting each other in the afterlife? Or does this god have different afterlives for the three of them?
-
I confess I'm not entirely sure I understand what you're getting at here. I'll try to address the question as best I can though.
Firstly, you're assuming God is a purely conceptual entity, i.e. God doesn't actually exist. Thus if this is intended as evidence against religion then it's sort of circular reasoning. If it's a question about beliefs then it's one that someone who thinks God is more than just an idea (a theist) will have a difficult time answering, since from their perspective the dilemma doesn't exist.
I didn't mean to imply that God being conceptual is equivalent to non-existence (which would, as you point out, be circular reasoning), nor is this intended as evidence against religion. My argument was simply that "the same god" is very different from saying "the same person". With a person, we can identify characteristics which are uniquely representative of that person; if people disagree about other details, then we still have some way of saying "that's the same person because they have the same fingerprints/DNA/social security number (or equivalent)". With a deity we have no such unique identifier.
Let's say three people know a guy named John. They all agree he's male and that his name is John, but disagree about almost everything else. One person says he has a son, another that the son was a fraud after his inheritance, and the last one that he was just a spokesman. One person says he is extremely picky about hundreds of things, another that he only cares that people love him, and the last one that he is also extremely picky but about mostly different things. They disagree about what John has done and what he thinks about many issues. Some believe that John demands money from his other friends, others that he's only friends with certain people, and others that he wants to be friends with anybody. Each of them believes he wrote a great book, but it's a different one for all three (though two of the books have half the same content). One thinks John has three fundamentally different roles combined in one, while the others thinks that's absurd. One of the few things in common is that they agree that John's cousin Abraham is a top guy.
I guess my point is this: why is a shared heritage more important than disagreement about the very nature of the deity they worship?
Second, while it would be extremely daunting to say, try and write a computer program to determine how similar two ideas are using a mathematical algorithm,
If we have some metric available then it's doable. For example, we can compare ideas using a finite number of different categories and having a score in each, and we can then calculate the Euclidean distance between them. The problem is that the weighting given to each category and the number and type of categories is arbitrary (in actuality there are an infinite number of areas in which ideas might differ). It's the same problem with a deity; everyone disagrees about what is more important, so comparing them by any such measure is impossible. And if we can't decide what constitutes "different" and "the same", how can we say two deities are the same or not?
It is still entirely possible to group religions based on what they believe. Take the three following ideas:
1) the Christain concept of God
2) the Islamic concept of God (Allah)
3) a cosmic invisible pink unicorn
If you surveyed people about how similar each of these three ideas are to one another you would pretty much always get the same response. That is, that Islamic and Christian beliefs are much closer to one another than they are to invisible unicorns.
What you have pointed out is more of a limitation on mathematical analysis than saying anything about religion. Unless of course I misunderstood.
Yes, but we aren't competing with three different ideas, but an infinite continuum with infinite dimensionality. For any two non-identical possible deities, there is another possible deity more similar to both of them. We have a super-infinity (aleph2) of possible deities, with an infinity of areas over which they may disagree and no way to decide, unless we do so arbitrarily, which ones are more similar. It isn't a mathematical limitation but a philosophical one.
Note that I would argue that a survey is not a valid way to decide philosophical matters. Not only is the general public pretty mediocre when it comes to such issues, but upbringing and pre-conceived ideas get in the way. If you ask a group of atheists which is more similar you would find that some of them would laugh and say they didn't really see a difference between any of the three. If you ask a moderate Christian you would probably find they consider their belief more similar to Allah, while a fundamentalist Christian may (again, all of these are simply possible responses) consider both other options equally ridiculous or misguided.
-
I wont lie that most of the stuff being talked about is out of my expertise, so the things I say may easily be countered. Not trying to seem stupid, but perhaps Ill get some clarification on things I may or may not be misunderstanding.
I guess my point is this: why is a shared heritage more important than disagreement about the very nature of the deity they worship?
A little variation of your john example, lets use SG, and you me, and ratc
Say you me and ratc all knew SG only in the forums. It all started off with just the Elements section, and SG was ban happy because of all the n00bs. We all agreed on that. Then SG had a sudden shift of attitude. I think that it isnt SG, and that someone hacked the account, so I start disregarding SG tell people what I think SG's opinion really would be, where as you and ratc just think that she had a change of heart. The forum then splits into 2 different sections. The wiki and the forum itself. ratc only stuck around in the wiki, and you only stuck around in the forums. You would get a different view of SG than what ratc got. In reality, they are still the same person, buit because they are dealing with different things, you see different sides.
Yes, but we aren't competing with three different ideas, but an infinite continuum with infinite dimensionality. For any two non-identical possible deities, there is another possible deity more similar to both of them. We have a super-infinity (aleph2) of possible deities, with an infinity of areas over which they may disagree and no way to decide, unless we do so arbitrarily, which ones are more similar. It isn't a mathematical limitation but a philosophical one.
Actually, I took it as we ARE comparing a finite amount of ideas. We are only talking about established religion. Not something that people randomly made up that has next to no followers aside from the person who created it.
Note that I would argue that a survey is not a valid way to decide philosophical matters. Not only is the general public pretty mediocre when it comes to such issues, but upbringing and pre-conceived ideas get in the way. If you ask a group of atheists which is more similar you would find that some of them would laugh and say they didn't really see a difference between any of the three. If you ask a moderate Christian you would probably find they consider their belief more similar to Allah, while a fundamentalist Christian may (again, all of these are simply possible responses) consider both other options equally ridiculous or misguided.
So what WOULD you believe to e a good sample to test out something like this? We are talking about religion and so every person in the world has a bias against it. I think the only way to make it more accurate would be to take it out of context of religion, and try to keep the attributes the same.
-
I wont lie that most of the stuff being talked about is out of my expertise, so the things I say may easily be countered. Not trying to seem stupid, but perhaps Ill get some clarification on things I may or may not be misunderstanding.
It's esoteric philosophy that has no basis in reality. So not being an expert is probably a good thing.
I guess my point is this: why is a shared heritage more important than disagreement about the very nature of the deity they worship?
A little variation of your john example, lets use SG, and you me, and ratc
Say you me and ratc all knew SG only in the forums. It all started off with just the Elements section, and SG was ban happy because of all the n00bs. We all agreed on that. Then SG had a sudden shift of attitude. I think that it isnt SG, and that someone hacked the account, so I start disregarding SG tell people what I think SG's opinion really would be, where as you and ratc just think that she had a change of heart. The forum then splits into 2 different sections. The wiki and the forum itself. ratc only stuck around in the wiki, and you only stuck around in the forums. You would get a different view of SG than what ratc got. In reality, they are still the same person, buit because they are dealing with different things, you see different sides.[/quote]
Your example is solid, but there's a caveat: how do we differentiate between one person who has three different perspectives and three different people? Unless we have some method of exclusion (which is harder than you think once you let people be mistaken about their claims) the concept of difference or similarity is mostly meaningless.
Yes, but we aren't competing with three different ideas, but an infinite continuum with infinite dimensionality. For any two non-identical possible deities, there is another possible deity more similar to both of them. We have a super-infinity (aleph2) of possible deities, with an infinity of areas over which they may disagree and no way to decide, unless we do so arbitrarily, which ones are more similar. It isn't a mathematical limitation but a philosophical one.
Actually, I took it as we ARE comparing a finite amount of ideas. We are only talking about established religion. Not something that people randomly made up that has next to no followers aside from the person who created it.
But most people don't follow the religion to the letter. We have 6 and a half billion people on this planet, almost none of whom agree on everything to do with faith or religion. Factor in the (very, very speculative) possibility of 100 billion humans being alive over the ages, and we can see that the number of different religious beliefs ever to have existed must be very large indeed; what's more, those 100 billion might have different views on religion throughout their lives (say as adults compared to children). We can't even assume that one of those 100 billion people would have got it exactly right, or even close to right, because there are so many possible differences that haven't even been considered, and probably never will.
If I had to make a conservative estimate at the number of different combinations of religious ideas humans have ever had, I would say roughly 100 trillion - 1,000 different combinations over the average person's life. This is probably off by very large factor, as it roughly translates into changing your mind about even the most insignificant religious detail only a thousand times. Most people probably change their minds far more than that; the number of details about which to change your mind is of course infinite, though we only consider a finite - but very large - number in our lives.
Eventually, trying to figure out which combinations of religious beliefs have actually been held by a living person and which haven't is not worth it.
Note that I would argue that a survey is not a valid way to decide philosophical matters. Not only is the general public pretty mediocre when it comes to such issues, but upbringing and pre-conceived ideas get in the way. If you ask a group of atheists which is more similar you would find that some of them would laugh and say they didn't really see a difference between any of the three. If you ask a moderate Christian you would probably find they consider their belief more similar to Allah, while a fundamentalist Christian may (again, all of these are simply possible responses) consider both other options equally ridiculous or misguided.
So what WOULD you believe to e a good sample to test out something like this? We are talking about religion and so every person in the world has a bias against it. I think the only way to make it more accurate would be to take it out of context of religion, and try to keep the attributes the same.
The only way to decide philosophical issues is with philosophical reasoning. It might be possible to construct a deductive argument, but people would almost certainly disagree with the premises. Really, it's an issue that can't be decided (barring an extraordinarily persuasive philosophical argument).
I'll sum up my position, since I think I've lost the plot here and there in my other posts on the topic:
We determine whether two entities are the same by finding a characteristic (or set of characteristics) which are uniquely held by that entity. No such set of characteristics exists for deities, or many other things.
Fun fact: we can't even distinguish between different electrons (same with protons, neutrons, etc.). We have no way of knowing whether a given electron is the one we just saw in the same place, or whether another one took its place (assuming that the two were close together anyway). In fact, two types of very different statistical mechanics (Fermi-Dirac statistics and Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics) hinge on this point. MB statistics assumes that we can distinguish between particles, while FD statistics assumes that we can't. It turns out that FD statistics correctly describes the distribution of "fermions" (electrons, protons, neutrons, etc.), but it approaches MB statistics at high temperatures and low densities, which implies that fermions are in fact indistinguishable when close together.
-
But most people don't follow the religion to the letter. We have 6 and a half billion people on this planet, almost none of whom agree on everything to do with faith or religion. Factor in the (very, very speculative) possibility of 100 billion humans being alive over the ages, and we can see that the number of different religious beliefs ever to have existed must be very large indeed; what's more, those 100 billion might have different views on religion throughout their lives (say as adults compared to children). We can't even assume that one of those 100 billion people would have got it exactly right, or even close to right, because there are so many possible differences that haven't even been considered, and probably never will.
If I had to make a conservative estimate at the number of different combinations of religious ideas humans have ever had, I would say roughly 100 trillion - 1,000 different combinations over the average person's life. This is probably off by very large factor, as it roughly translates into changing your mind about even the most insignificant religious detail only a thousand times. Most people probably change their minds far more than that; the number of details about which to change your mind is of course infinite, though we only consider a finite - but very large - number in our lives.
Eventually, trying to figure out which combinations of religious beliefs have actually been held by a living person and which haven't is not worth it.
but most agree on the main things of what their entity represents. Take for example, all 99% christians would agree using the phrase "God is love" is a good example of God. the reason I say 99% is about 90% of the people that fall into the 1% are just using God to corrupt people, and dont actually believe in him, so they shouldnt be counted.
So we could take all the Jehovah witnesses, Orthodox Christians, Progressive Christians, methodist, pentecostle, and use their opinion, AND I know they will have their own differences within that, but the standard belief is still the same
-
the standard belief is still the same
- Manchester United are the greatest football team on the planet. Their team has 11 players and they have won the cup.
- Everton are the greatest football team on the planet. Their team has 11 players and they have won the cup.
- Liverpool are the greatest football team on the planet. Their team has 11 players and they have won the cup.
Are Manchester United, Everton and Liverpool all the same team?
Taking a number of common qualities amongst a set of things is not proof that those things are the same, or are different reflections of the same platonic form/elephant*. Your argument does not hold because you are relying on bare assertion.
*The converse (that differences mean they are strictly different) may also be untrue, but this is largely irrelevant since to allow for that to be untrue you'd have to accept a number of other premises such as the existence of a "platonic ideal" of religion reflected in all others.
-
- Manchester United are the greatest football team on the planet. Their team has 11 players and they have won the cup.
- Everton are the greatest football team on the planet. Their team has 11 players and they have won the cup.
- Liverpool are the greatest football team on the planet. Their team has 11 players and they have won the cup.
Are Manchester United, Everton and Liverpool all the same team?
Taking a number of common qualities amongst a set of things is not proof that those things are the same, or are different reflections of the same platonic form/elephant*. Your argument does not hold because you are relying on bare assertion.
*The converse (that differences mean they are strictly different) may also be untrue, but this is largely irrelevant since to allow for that to be untrue you'd have to accept a number of other premises such as the existence of a "platonic ideal" of religion reflected in all others.
Here is the problem with your comparison. We are talking football, something with regulated rules, in comparison to religion with no rules. Someone also has to win the Cup, but there is no such similar requirement in religion. We are also looking at many things such as history, and even views that the other religions have about each other. And also, if many of the players were the same, with a few exceptions in each group, you would consider it almost the exact same team, under a different name. This is the similarity we are talking about.
-
Here is the problem with your comparison. We are talking football, something with regulated rules, in comparison to religion with no rules. Someone also has to win the Cup, but there is no such similar requirement in religion. We are also looking at many things such as history, and even views that the other religions have about each other.
Once again i will state for extra emphasis though, that since you are comparing something that HAS to have certain requirements, it does not fit the example. And also, if many of the players were the same, with a few exceptions in each group, you would consider it almost the exact same team, under a different name. This is the similarity we are talking about.
You've completely missed the point. The point is that a thing possesses qualities. Other things may possess similar qualities, but that does not make them the same thing.
-
But you can compare them to TRY to deduct if they ARE the same thing or not. Why nearly refuse to even examine the info to see if it fits? That is what Im wondering. I agree that just because they have similarities it does not mean that they are the same, and as you also pointed out differences dont mean they are different. When looking at murder cases similar things are done though. It may not be an exact science to see if the same person/group did it each time, but it does give a good idea. All that is being pointed out is that there is no harm in doing it as long as you look at the information objectively.
Also, as a side point, yes, a rock and a head possess similar qualities. They are both hard solids for example. But we are not just comparing spmething under loose anything goes circumstances. We are talking about religions with similarities that are quite astounding. My post about SG is a perfect example of this. It is not something as abstract as the world, it is actually a very linear comparison that is trying to be made
-
We are talking about religions with similarities that are quite astounding.
They're not really that astounding when you realise that many families of religions (the abrahamic religions as an example) share the same mythological roots, and are for the most part derived from each other. It's like being amazed that Catholicism is similar to the Church of England, or that poodles are similar to pit-bulls.
Similarly many other similarities can be explained in the context of convergent memetic evolution and hybridisation. Bear in mind that as memetic structures, religions and mythology are quite susceptible to this sort of thing.
What specific similarities would you hold out as being examples of "these two religions are clearly different facets of the same thing"?
-
Thus I am left with 2 possibilities concerning God 1) God exists, at least in some form or 2) half the human race has the same mental illness. Number 2 is actually possible, though not very reassuring, generally I fall back on other arguments when discussing this possibility.
Whether its comforting or not, the human race has had a series of mental illnesses-war, slavery, tyrannical governments, genocide, child abuse, addiction, starvation, etc. Luckily, with technology, reason, and discourse most of us don't have to live with those illnesses. I consider all those disasters as resulting from delusions, so I don't consider it a far stretch for humanity to still be lost in other mental traps, myself not excluded.
Jumping way back to this for a moment, I came across a book that is relevant to this discussion:
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=oY0nsXwPJ3AC&oi=fnd&pg=PA87&dq=Divorce+rate+religiosity&ots=8x9AjghSsD&sig=fTA-PQ7xp0d00G2GmU9XVR50KWQ#v=onepage&q=Divorce%20rate%20religiosity&f=false
Basically, this book discusses a curious finding that the rates of certain mental illnesses, such as depression & resulting suicide, are significantly lower among religious persons than non-religious persons. Note that it's from Oxford University Press, a reputable source.
On a couple other points that have been brought up semi-recently:
On the discussion over when multiple religions are discussing the same God or not, This is an odd discussion for me because the question literally only exists from an atheistic perspective. The point about being able to tell which object one is referring to by description alone sort of falls apart for hose of us who can/have experienced God more directly.
As to this question posed by innominate:
Fair enough. But how similar do their beliefs have to be for it to be the same God? If a hypothetical (and possibly crazy) Christian believes that Jesus was Zeus' son and Yahweh killed him in a fit of rage, does that mean he still believes in the same God?
Suppose a hypothetical (and possibly crazy) person believes that I am actually the earthly embodiment of a superior being from the planet Venus. Are they still talking about me? Yes. Are they correct? No.
As to the discussion of belief in fairies versus belief in God:
If I were to see a fairy, or strong evidence of fairies, I would believe in them. I haven't. I cannot completely and conclusively rule out the existence of fairies, but I have decided it is unlikely. I have not given the evidence for/against fairies much consideration, because at the end of the day it has very little bearing on how I live my life. Thus it does not particularly matter if I am wrong on this account.
Yes there are eyewitness accounts of fairies, but they're several orders of magnitude rarer than religious experiences, and are in fact rare enough they could easily be accounted for by either mental illness, pranks, or simply making up stories.
-
What specific similarities would you hold out as being examples of "these two religions are clearly different facets of the same thing"?
Ratcharmer actually already answered that in his very first post of the thread...
-
What specific similarities would you hold out as being examples of "these two religions are clearly different facets of the same thing"?
Ratcharmer actually already answered that in his very first post of the thread...
Can you quote them for me? I just went to check - maybe because it's late, but I couldn't find them.
Actually, you've inspired me to rebut that post, it's full of errors in reasoning.
-
I realise these may have been addressed earlier in the thread, but I wanted to make a clean break.
Burden of proof arguments
Actually, you're misinterpreting the way that the burden of proof is actually used in a logical sense - that is, the burden is on the person making an affirmative statement. It's not semantics, it's actually an important logical principle. Hence, Russell's Teapot (which, as I'll explain later, you haven't actually refuted).
If a theist wishes to propose the existence of his god, then they are making an affirmative statement. Atheism in its weak form is actually just a passive position that makes no assertions. In fact, strong atheism actually makes very little logical sense because it is logically impossible to prove that something does not exist. Therefore, since the theist must make an affirmative statement about the existence of their god, the atheist simply needs to reject their proposed proof in order to demonstrate that the theist's claims are untrue.
Further, the existence of God is often (in my experience, always) presented as an unfalsifiable and untestable position. The "god of the gaps" has no actual meaning when you are continually reducing the gaps and yet finding nothing. If you cannot test for something it makes no sense to talk about it as a statement that relates to actuality, let alone the practices of organised religion.
Furthermore, if you will not reject the notion of god based on the lack of proof, then you must also accept the existence of other things with similar amounts of "proof", such as the existence of ghosts, the soul, the Greek Pantheon, muses, angels, spirit auras, Allah, Thor, Odin, the invisible pink unicorn and so on. This quickly demonstrates how flawed this position is.
It sounds ridiculous
You would be right that to reject an idea purely on the grounds that it is "ridiculous" is not sound. However, an important principle in rational skepticism is that the more outlandish or ridiculous the claim, the more evidence you are going to need to support it. For example, if I tell you that I am typing at my laptop in my girlfriend's kitchen to write this post, you probably don't need to bother gathering a lot of evidence to support that claim. However, if I tell you that I am in fact typing this post by patching through the British Telecom system from a spaceship orbiting a little-known moon of Sesefras Magna*, it might take more proof to convince you.
Carl Sagan's quote, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", which paraphrases Hume's Maxim ("No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish"), is an important tool to consider when looking at the world. Check out this link (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2008/01/extraordinary-c.html) for a more in-depth discussion of this idea.
*Kudos to anyone who gets this reference.
Historical contradictions
If there is a direct contradiction between two events (for example, the Genesis account(s) and what science has established about the history of the world), then one account or the other is incorrect. Perhaps not entirely incorrect (as, you mention, with courtroom testimony), but on the details one must be correct and the other incorrect. You cannot have two mutually incompatible accounts that are both entirely accurate. If you want to modify the literalism of the biblical accounts, then you're guilty of special pleading.
The Invisible Pink Unicorn
As I've already pointed out in the other thread, this is argumentum ad populum and hence a logical fallacy. Russell's Teapot stands.
-
Atheism in its weak form is actually just a passive position that makes no assertions. In fact, strong atheism actually makes very little logical sense because it is logically impossible to prove that something does not exist.
I have a problem with the weak/strong distinction. It exists only for the purpose of justifying one's position, but it doesn't correspond to a difference in internal state. In their brains, people do not go around making distinctions between not believing that there is a pink elephant on their shoulders and believing that there is not a pink elephant on their shoulders. The first may be more defensible in conversation, but the two are equivalent in organismic terms.
Suppose you sneak up on a man, yell "Boo!," and the man is startled. Did the man not believe you were behind him or did he believe that you were not behind him? It's a mere word game. The man's internal representation of reality did not include you being behind him.
-
Sorry it took me so long to get back to you on this. Been busy.
I'll spoiler each section to keep it from being to long . . .
Burden of Proof
The "argument from ignorance" as addressed by Russel's teapot and other such arguments only works in situations where there is a complete lack of data.
What atheism is doing, or at least some atheists (as I should bear in mind no two people are likely to think exactly the same thing) is conclude that all religions are false since there isn't any data available, then go on to discard any data presented, since it must be false since religion is false because there isn't any data. It just doesn't work
The problem with the atheistic position on this is that you're seeking to overturn belief in any sort of deity, something on which literally every society in recorded history has maintained in the overwhelming majority of the population. There are literally more testimonies on "supernatural" events than there are people currently living. There are also countless logical arguments in favor of a God existing, and yes, even scientific studies that lend support.
God has not been proven absolutely true, but neither is the debate steming from an absolute lack of knowledge.
Consider Russel's Teapot. There's no reason why anyone would even think to look for a teapot floating through space, but what if a group nof astronauts reported seeing one? What if over the course of several years several different groups from different cultures reported seeing a teapot floating through space? It's at least enough to make people want to investigate. Applying the scientific method (observe, hypothesis, test) to religion simply gives us an observation and a hypothesis that no-one knows how to test yet.
In any debate both sides must make their case. Even when "burden of proof" is established, the unburdened side must still establish some basis for their case. Atheists have not done even that little bit. Allow me to demonstrate:
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/dawk911.htm
http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ARTICLEID_CHAR=0C9F4CBB-2B35-221B-628A70E93A04E86C
In the first article (and many others) Dawkins maintains his claim that the absolute entirety of the burden of proof must rest on the religous person, yet in the second one he maintains that he shouldn't have to listen to arguments in favor of religion in order to know that it's false.
What's that? Place the burden of proof on the other party and then not listen to what they have to say? Why I could prove anything using that method. Including the sky being green and the grass being blue.
I recognize that not all atheists believe the same thing, and I hope most don't follow that particular brand of logic. But this is the main sort of reasoning I've encountered (never directly stated mind you) and I find it very frustrating.
As to Daxx's statement about "the God of the gaps", I find this odd, because many of the recent gaps were filled in by exactly what I expected to see, based on a theistic perspective. I'll go into a bit more detail at the end of the post.
Oddly enough, Hume's Maxim sort of makes one of my points for me. You're automatically assuming any testamony that reports something that doesn't fit with your worldview must be false, simply on the grounds that it's hard to reconcile with your worldview.
Historical Contradictions
Could you please clarify what you mean by "special pleading"? I'm afraid I'm not clear on what you're trying to say there.
Evolution versus creationism isn't really part of what I was discussing with this argument; I was trying to get at was discrepancies between the Biblical account of an event and a different account from the same period.
I'm happy to discuss evolution with you, but that really doesn't fit with this argument. I think for the most part we'd just end up agreeing anyway.
The main point I was trying to make is that for any historical event different sources will differ in details, yet without a time machine there is no way to go back and check which one is true. In events that can be verified, Biblical accounts have been shown to be as accurate as we can reasonably establish.
Invisible Pink Unicorn
I've replied to this briefly on the other thread, but let me do a more thorough job here.
You have several times refered to this as a logical fallacy, but you have yet to provide any support to the argument. You say that, in spite of the fact that "argument ad populum" refers to an appeal to public opinion that it should apply to things people see/experience. Okay, let's take a closer look at that.
In a given population, let suppose half of the population witnesses a phenomena. Of those that observe it, half of them misinterperet it as something else. There is one "correct" interpretation, but there are many, many incorrect ones. Therefore all of the 25% who correctly interperet the event will agree, whereas there will be several different opinions in the 25% who misinterpereted it. Therefore in matters of an eyewitness account a consensus opinion will hold, even if we assume witness accounts to be extremely innaccurate.
In order for there to be a risk of "false possitives" we would have to assume human perceptions have almost no bearing on reality whatsoever, whereupon I'm probably "typing" this post into an angry jellyfish, and the whole point is moot anyway.
Okay, so maybe there's a biasing factor? What about groupthink, or cultural bias? They've been referenced a couple times now. Except both of those could only bias things towards a religious interpretation of events if we assume that there is already an overwhelming majority holding those views. Therefore, such things could potentially influence the spread of eyewitness accounts, but not their origin. On a side note, such things could explain different cultures etc. having different interpretations of a phenomena, hence Christians vs Muslims vs Hindus vs Jews etc etc . . .
As a final note on this, please try to take a step back for a minute and think about what you're saying. You're asking me to discard my religious beliefs, any court system that uses testamonies, at least half of all news sources (probably more) and what my own senses tell me based on nothing more than your say so.
I'm not trying to say that there can't be any legitimate reason for your views, but if there is you haven't provided it. If I'm wrong then teach me why, don't just keep repeating "logical fallacy" like it's soem kind of mantra.
And finally, I'd like to introduce a new argument for commentary:
Fine-tuned Universe
I'll start with a wikipedia article, so you can get a basic overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe
I am aware wikipedia isn't super reputable, use the articles to familiarize yourselves with the issue, but I'm hoping better citations will come out during the course of the discussion.
My summary of the argument runs something like this:
Our universe contains a certain number of physical constants (the precise number is unknown) each of which has an exact numerical value, and the numerical values of these constants do not change. If we were to make even tiny adjustments to these values we end up with a universe that would not allow for life in any form we would find remotely recognizable as "alive". Please note that many of these predicted changes are things like "matter would not form". The thought is that if the universe is rather uniquely balanced to allow for life, then this could point towards a creator.
and a now link to the wikipedia article on one of the more credible (in my opinion) responses:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
Basically, the anthropic prinicple states that we can only observe a universe that could contain us, so there is an observer bias. This response is valid, but it still seems unusual that most possible universes would result in something like "the entire universe collapses into a singularity", why would the constant's just happen to balance one another? what's more, it only really works to explain fine-tuning if we assume there are other universes.
There is also some debate over how far the fine-tuning goes, largely due to the fact that 1) we don't know what all the universal constants are yet and 2) we haven't solved all of physics yet, so we can't predict with confidence what a universe with different laws/constants would look like. Notably however, this debate did not exist until after theism was implicated. (Going by publication dates of the articles cited on wikipedia, I'll try to look into this more)
There have been many hypothesis put forward to explain this phenomenon without invoking God, here's a sampling:
-There are many/infinite universes, and we're only aware of the one we can live in due to the anthropic principle (see the second link)
-Wheeler's Participatory Anthropic Principle, an interpretation of quantum mechanics in which only a universe containing observers (life) can exist. I believe Essence has referenced this a couple of times.
-Some part of the yet undiscovered "Theory of Everything" dictates that the laws of the universe must allow for life
-"Life" would exist anyway, and we just can't imagine what form it would take in a different universe.
There are others, but I'll try to let someone else give a more thorough account of them to avoid biasing the treatment of the argument. I'll just leave off with this: none of these explanations (to my knowledge) is any more testable (or probable) than invoking God, so why are they considered more rational to atheists?
On a more general question to whoever wants to answer it:
Science shows us that there are mathematical constants & equations that govern the universe. Where do you think these equations & constants come from?
@Belthus:
I think Daxx is referring to "strong" athiesm as the belief that God has been conclusively proven NOT to exist, whereas "weak" atheism is the belief that there is not sufficient evidence to suspect the existence of God/god/gods.
I should probably let Daxx answer for himself though.
-
@Belthus:
I think Daxx is referring to "strong" athiesm as the belief that God has been conclusively proven NOT to exist, whereas "weak" atheism is the belief that there is not sufficient evidence to suspect the existence of God/god/gods.
I understand the distinction. It is very common in the Internet atheist subculture. But I disagree with it as a description of different states of mind. I see the two as different conversational approaches, motivated by the same disbelief.
BTW, another strong atheist approach is to say that the concepts of god are self-contradictory. In other words, it's a critique of the internal consistency of a set of descriptions. If someone claims that a being exists with properties X, Y, and Z, and you can show that X, Y, and Z are incompatible with each other, that's strong atheism. If you say there is a being named Fred who is all-powerful and the very essence of goodness, I could point to the existence of evil as a refutation (theodicy). So even if Fred shows up, he may exist but not have the properties that qualify him as a god.
-
Long post. I'd spoiler it as well, but I don't like breaking up what are a number of interrelated points.
Burden of Proof
The "argument from ignorance" as addressed by Russel's teapot and other such arguments only works in situations where there is a complete lack of data.
What atheism is doing, or at least some atheists (as I should bear in mind no two people are likely to think exactly the same thing) is conclude that all religions are false since there isn't any data available, then go on to discard any data presented, since it must be false since religion is false because there isn't any data. It just doesn't work
That may be true in some cases (where people are not following the scientific method properly) but it certainly isn't a claim that can be made of all atheism.
The position that I take is that there is no evidence which satisfies criteria for proof for the existence of God, and no argument yet presented proves that a god or gods exist, without admitting to a more likely theory. Let's look at a quick example:
The sun crosses the sky each day. You might think this is pretty solid evidence that the sun revolves around the Earth. After all, the Earth is manifestedly not moving, and the Sun clearly is. Unfortunately this piece of evidence also suggests a second possible hypothesis: that the Sun stays still and the frame of reference of the Earth is moving.
People occasionally experience what are termed "supernatural experiences". They are abducted by aliens, witches or demons; they have gods talk to them; see visions; feel euphoric in large worship services. This could admit to the existence of the supernatural. Alternatively, it could admit also to the well-supported theory that occasionally the brain malfunctions and causes hallucinations or emotional upsets. Someone having the experience of being abducted by aliens in the middle of the night does not necessarily point to this as having been the case, especially when there is a more likely cause.
The problem you're making is an error of assumption of motive. You're claiming that the scientific perspective seeks to ignore the supernatural and seek for other solutions because it has previously decided that gods don't exist. But the fact of the matter is that science has no such prior bias - it says to search for the most likely solution based off the body of evidence we have, because more often than not it is the correct one. The concept of the supernatural is almost always more fantastical than other things which we can conceptualise and test for, whilst the supernatural requires that we make assumptions about the world that we cannot test. See Occam's razor for further reading on this concept.
The problem with the atheistic position on this is that you're seeking to overturn belief in any sort of deity, something on which literally every society in recorded history has maintained in the overwhelming majority of the population. There are literally more testimonies on "supernatural" events than there are people currently living.
Argumentum ad populum. You cannot logically argue that a position is correct on the grounds that many people believe it to be so.
I also dispute your claim that there are more testimonies on supernatural events than there are people currently living, but since you have no way of supporting that claim I won't begrudge you if you meant it as a matter of hyperbole (despite the use of the word "literally").
But let's accept those flawed premises for one second. Many people believe in many different gods. I doubt there is one religion that has a majority score on the number of "religious experiences" had by mankind. Since there are many different and usually contradictory religions, how does this prove that any specific religion is correct in its explanation for the supernatural? Of course, this means nothing, since the occurrence of supernatural experiences has other explanations that make more sense given what we know about how nature works - and we know quite well enough that the brain is prone to hallucination and error.
There are also countless logical arguments in favor of a God existing, and yes, even scientific studies that lend support.
God has not been proven absolutely true, but neither is the debate steming from an absolute lack of knowledge.
Could you give me examples? I've never seen an argument that supports the existence of a god or gods that actually holds up under scrutiny.
Consider Russel's Teapot. There's no reason why anyone would even think to look for a teapot floating through space, but what if a group nof astronauts reported seeing one? What if over the course of several years several different groups from different cultures reported seeing a teapot floating through space? It's at least enough to make people want to investigate. Applying the scientific method (observe, hypothesis, test) to religion simply gives us an observation and a hypothesis that no-one knows how to test yet.
If it can't be tested, it is largely meaningless as a scientific concept in the current scientific context. In addition, and more importantly, it is highly likely that it is not possible to test the hypothesis of God's existence, because the supernatural is generally untestable. Special pleading is virtually always invoked when testing is done, and the God of the Gaps is no god at all.
In any debate both sides must make their case. Even when "burden of proof" is established, the unburdened side must still establish some basis for their case. Atheists have not done even that little bit.
Absolutely not. Atheists do not need to prove anything, because they do not make the positive claims about the world that theists do. Dawkins would be wrong to employ the logic that he does not need to listen to arguments before deciding whether they are false or not. It is not logically sound to demand an opposing argument from someone disputing a positive claim, when all that is needed to falsify that claim is to disprove all its arguments.
As to Daxx's statement about "the God of the gaps", I find this odd, because many of the recent gaps were filled in by exactly what I expected to see, based on a theistic perspective. I'll go into a bit more detail at the end of the post.
The God of the Gaps argument refers to the tendency for rational or scientific explanations to be found for previously unknown phenomena. As these explanations are found, the space that "God" once occupied in order to explain the unexplained shrinks. For example, we now know how the world and the creatures on it came into being without needing to invoke God. As another example which I have been using a lot in these posts, we also now know how to explain "witch abductions" or "alien abductions", as well as succubi and incubi without resorting to supernatural explanations.
The rhetorical point made is that throughout history the space left for God to occupy in our understanding of the world has shrunk as our understanding has grown. If God only exists in the gaps, it seems reasonable to speculate that it is possible that once all the gaps are uncovered there will be no more space for God. This is a rhetorical point, but it illustrates that it is reasonable to pay close attention to any gaps we uncover to see whether they restrict the domain of the supernatural or they prove its existence.
Oddly enough, Hume's Maxim sort of makes one of my points for me. You're automatically assuming any testamony that reports something that doesn't fit with your worldview must be false, simply on the grounds that it's hard to reconcile with your worldview.
Ah, you misunderstand. It doesn't mean it must be false, only that the standard of proof needed to establish it is true is proportional to the claims it makes about the world. For example, if your friend told you he had bought a new shirt, you probably wouldn't need to see the shirt in order to accept his claim as being probably true. If, however, he had claimed to have bought a space station, you might be more skeptical.
Historical Contradictions
Could you please clarify what you mean by "special pleading"? I'm afraid I'm not clear on what you're trying to say there.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html
This is very, very important when discussing religion. This fallacy is made by religious people all the time, cf. the Invisible Gardener.
Evolution versus creationism isn't really part of what I was discussing with this argument; I was trying to get at was discrepancies between the Biblical account of an event and a different account from the same period.
I'm happy to discuss evolution with you, but that really doesn't fit with this argument. I think for the most part we'd just end up agreeing anyway.
Maybe a different thread then. I'm mostly pointing it out as an example of something that we know the biblical account to be incorrect about.
The main point I was trying to make is that for any historical event different sources will differ in details, yet without a time machine there is no way to go back and check which one is true. In events that can be verified, Biblical accounts have been shown to be as accurate as we can reasonably establish.
This isn't true of all of them, and specifically there are a number that we know to be untrue. I can dig up examples of these if you like, but this post is already long enough as it stands. Regardless, whether or not the bible vaguely follows the historical timeline we can establish means nothing on the question of the existence of God. It simply means that the bible is a collection of bronze-iron age stories passed down through a certain cultural group, of which we have a number of examples across the world.
Invisible Pink Unicorn
I've replied to this briefly on the other thread, but let me do a more thorough job here.
You have several times refered to this as a logical fallacy, but you have yet to provide any support to the argument. You say that, in spite of the fact that "argument ad populum" refers to an appeal to public opinion that it should apply to things people see/experience. Okay, let's take a closer look at that.
In a given population, let suppose half of the population witnesses a phenomena. Of those that observe it, half of them misinterperet it as something else. There is one "correct" interpretation, but there are many, many incorrect ones. Therefore all of the 25% who correctly interperet the event will agree, whereas there will be several different opinions in the 25% who misinterpereted it. Therefore in matters of an eyewitness account a consensus opinion will hold, even if we assume witness accounts to be extremely innaccurate.
In order for there to be a risk of "false possitives" we would have to assume human perceptions have almost no bearing on reality whatsoever, whereupon I'm probably "typing" this post into an angry jellyfish, and the whole point is moot anyway.
Okay, so maybe there's a biasing factor? What about groupthink, or cultural bias? They've been referenced a couple times now. Except both of those could only bias things towards a religious interpretation of events if we assume that there is already an overwhelming majority holding those views. Therefore, such things could potentially influence the spread of eyewitness accounts, but not their origin. On a side note, such things could explain different cultures etc. having different interpretations of a phenomena, hence Christians vs Muslims vs Hindus vs Jews etc etc . . .
As a final note on this, please try to take a step back for a minute and think about what you're saying. You're asking me to discard my religious beliefs, any court system that uses testamonies, at least half of all news sources (probably more) and what my own senses tell me based on nothing more than your say so.
I'm not trying to say that there can't be any legitimate reason for your views, but if there is you haven't provided it. If I'm wrong then teach me why, don't just keep repeating "logical fallacy" like it's soem kind of mantra.
I covered this in a different post, but I'll go over it again.
Firstly, let's examine your argument.
1. A majority of people have had religious experiences.
2. These religious experiences represent reliable evidence of the existence of God.
3. Because a lot of people have had religious experiences, this means that God exists.
The bulk of my disagreement lies with the second and the third, but let's tackle the first just to be thorough. I vehemently doubt that the amount of people who have had religious experiences is a majority of the population. Why is this? Well, assuming that having such an experience makes you religious, it is interesting that we find that the majority of the population (in the western world, data may be different in various theocracies and third-world nations) is not highly religious, even though a majority of people may report themselves to be part of a religion. Most surveys done on the religiosity of populations finds that the amount who are highly religious is relatively low compared to those who consider themselves to be members of a religion - census data on religion is notorious for nowhere near matching church attendance figures, for example. A reasonable conclusion we can draw from this is that many people who put their religion as "Christian" in a predominantly Christian country, when returning census data, are only doing so because of cultural normitivism rather than actual firm belief. If you disagree with this conclusion, please find some data that support your claim that the majority of people have had religious experiences because you haven't presented any so far.
More importantly, let's get to the second part. As I have already repeatedly commented (and you have not disputed, I assume you accept the point I made) the brain is notorious for hallucinating and making up events which are at odds with reality even when unprovoked. Even what you are currently seeing through your eyes is largely a construction of your brain - the eye is not particuarly well designed to capture images and returns an incomplete image which is filled in by the brain (cf. the brain's "blind spot" where the optic nerve meets the retina).
Since we have actual explanations for the reasons behind these experiences rather than saying "god did it", these experiences do not constitute proof for the existence of the supernatural. The experiences might agree in form, but this doesn't admit to any underlying reason other than a physical similarity between peoples' brains and the way they malfunction (funny that, it's almost like peoples' brains are built the same or something).
Thirdly, this is where the argumentum ad populum comes into play.
Majority opinion about experiences simply is not different to that about beliefs, as an experience is simply a belief about an observed phenomenon. You're making a category error in differentiating the two. For example, people could look up into the sky and observe the sun moving around the earth. But this observation was flawed and admitted to several underlying explanations. The consensus opinion was that the sun revolved around the earth, but consensus opinion was incorrect. There are many, many other examples of this - if you're still not sure, please take a minute to read a bit about the argumentum ad populum fallacy, as there is loads of stuff about it online.
So, to conclude, even if a majority of people had had religious experiences (and as I mention above I dispute this) this would still not constitute definitive proof that a God exists, because we a) have a better explanation for their experiences and b) we know that even a majority opinion can be wrong. Every part of that argument is wrong, and it simply doesn't support the conclusion you're trying to make.
And yes, whilst court systems do rely on majority opinion, that opinion is generally asked to be "without reasonable doubt". If the evidence against an accused man is not solid enough, the case is chucked out or he is found innocent. The practicality or otherwise of solipsism is a different matter entirely to reasonable skepticism.
And finally, I'd like to introduce a new argument for commentary:
Fine-tuned Universe
[...]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principleI'll just leave off with this: none of these explanations (to my knowledge) is any more testable (or probable) than invoking God, so why are they considered more rational to atheists?
The anthropic principle is an excellent foil to this and most other teleological arguments, so let's address your concerns about it.
Firstly, "why would the constants just happen to balance each other?". Well, this is actually answered by the principle itself. If they weren't, then we wouldn't observe it happening. Secondly, "it only really works... if we assume other universes". Actually, it doesn't. Multiple universes is a convenient way to explain the idea, but the anthropic principle doesn't require this particular explanation because there is literally no way we could be answering these questions within this context, outside our current context. There could quite easily only be one universe which got "lucky", or a cyclical set of universes with different constants, or the constants could be an emergent property of the universe's existence. Basically the principle is sound no matter what you assume about the context or lack thereof within which the universe conceptually exists. Since the principle explains an error in logic rather than an explanation itself, and is independent of the context, it is not required to be testable. Other explanations might need to be tested (and some may not be testable) of course, but that doesn't mean that the teleological argument is an acceptable proof for the existence of God.
I understand the distinction. It is very common in the Internet atheist subculture. But I disagree with it as a description of different states of mind. I see the two as different conversational approaches, motivated by the same disbelief.
I see it as a difference in logical position. In one you are making a positive claim, and in the other you are not. I am a weak atheist, because I do not make the claim that God definitely does not exist.
-
I see it as a difference in logical position. In one you are making a positive claim, and in the other you are not. I am a weak atheist, because I do not make the claim that God definitely does not exist.
Can you give me examples of people who make the claim that God definitely does not exist? Even if there are such people, would they not admit to making errors from time to time? If they can make errors about the truth of other things, they must recognize their epistemological limits.
One line I heard, which makes sense to me is: you can be a strong atheist with respect to particular propositions by pointing out their contradictions and inadequacies. However, to the general question of whether any god exists, one can only be a weak atheist, resting on the absence of evidence and challenging others to put up or shut up. Thus, these two descriptions describe the same person in different situations, not two different kinds of atheists.
-
I see it as a difference in logical position. In one you are making a positive claim, and in the other you are not. I am a weak atheist, because I do not make the claim that God definitely does not exist.
Can you give me examples of people who make the claim that God definitely does not exist? Even if there are such people, would they not admit to making errors from time to time? If they can make errors about the truth of other things, they must recognize their epistemological limits.
I never said that the strong atheist position was logically consistent or useful. But it's a common strawman position that religious people present.
-
Invisible unicorn
There are literally more testimonies on "supernatural" events than there are people currently living.
This was poorly phrased as many of the testamonies of the dead are no longer available, sorry about that. You seem to have gotten the overall message anyway.
I believe you asked for support for how widespread religious experience is (can't find the quote anymore)?
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1386320
I didn't include the link originally because the exact numbers are not important to the argument.
On Hume's maxim:
I'm aware of what you meant, but reports of religious/supernatural phenomena are only "big" claims if you're starting from the assumption that whatever belief it supports is false to a religious person, who has lived their whole life experiencing God, has studied God in depth and seen exactly what God can do in people's lives,ssaying it's all their imagination is a huge claim.
"Big" claims are usually defined by how far someone wants to upset what is already known and accepted, and by that measure, I'm sorry to say, the athiest clearly loses out.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html
This is very, very important when discussing religion. This fallacy is made by religious people all the time, cf. the Invisible Gardener.
I'm aware of what the term itself means, I don't understand what you mean by using it as an argument against a non-literal interpretation.
Firstly, let's examine your argument.
1. A majority of people have had religious experiences.
2. These religious experiences represent reliable evidence of the existence of God.
3. Because a lot of people have had religious experiences, this means that God exists.
Umm . . . apparently I need to work on being clearer, because this is definitely not the argument I was making . . .
My version of the argument goes a bit more like this:
1) Russel's teapot and similar arguments invariably invoke something that no one has ever reported seeing and would never think to look for.
2) People have reported directly experiencing God. It's quite commonplace.
3) Therefore Russel is using a flawed analogy.
What I'm trying to point out is that Russel's teapot established the need for an initial reason to look for something, not an absolute burden of proof.
Consider this:
Suppose I'm traveling to a war torn country. While there I see a what looks like a teapot in the middle of the street. Before I can investigate further sirens sound and I am forced to evacuate the area. When I make it back (I'm very interested in teapots it seems . . . ) the area has been bombed and the teapot is gone.
I cannot prove or disprove that teapot existed any more than I can prove Russel's teapot orbiting Mars. Am I then going to decide I must have halucinated a teapot and it didn't actually exist? Of course not! No reasonable person would.
Suppose it was someone else who saw the teapot in the street. Now things are a little fuzzier, but there is still no reason to assume that they are wrong based solely on the fact they cannot scientifically prove something.
This argument is not a "proof" God exists, it's a rebutal to Russel's Teapot.
A further note on scientific proof, as it regaurds religion:
You cannot scientifically proove that you ate dinner last Friday, I cannot scientifically prove that my wife loves me, or that I love my wife. Nor can criminal charges be proven scientifically. This does not mean that you're annorexic, my wife and I don't love each other and that all convicted felons are innocent.
Not being able to prove something scientifically means only that another method must be used to establish whether or not something is true. Science makes no claims about the veracity of such things.
Fine-tuned Universe
Let's take an example:
The force of gravity is widely accepted to be controlled by one of the universal constants, and it's easy to visualize, so I'll use gravity for my example.
If gravity was stronger than it currently is, all matter in the universe would be pulled together, and collapse into a singularity. If you increase gravity further beyond that, you still get the same result--all the universe, compressed into a singularity.
If gravity was weaker, then all matter in the universe would disperse out into infinity. Again, making it weaker beyond that makes no difference on the end result.
So what we have is a finite range in which life is feasable, over an infinite possible range of values. Any finite number divided by infinity equals zero. Our universe is quite literally impossible unless either a) there is some sort of underlying guidance or b) one presumes infinite universes.
Niether one of these is a testable assumption. The anthropic principle makes no difference, it's still impossible.
side note that doesn't really fit with either
Atheism invariably invokes "possitive claims" when trying to establish burden of proof, yet almost invariably there follows immediately afterward a series of possitve claims which are boldly made and left completely unsupported.
Here's a sampling of such claims taken from this very forum:
-Religious experiences are due to delusions, yet atheists are somehow immune (or at least highly resistant) to this phenomena
-Scientists can make cells from protein.
-(insert war here) was caused by religion.
Not only are these invariably unsupported, but when invesitgated they're almost invariably unsupportable. I've looked for weeks and cannot find a single scientific paper that supports the first, the second is just nonsense apparently based off of a misinterpretation of the Miller experiement (which Dr. Miller himself said was not good evidence for the "primordia soup" http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/461/primordial-recipe-spark-and-stir).
I can't go through every war here, but to name a couple:
-The conflict in the middle east: Isreal is one of the least religious nations in the world. Given that, blaming this on religion doesn't make sense.
-First Crusade: started when Europe united against an invading empire, which was in turn trying to expand their territory.
I'm not trying to rant here, I'm just trying to point out that really, you're holding religious persons to a much higher standard of "proof" then you're holding yourselves.
-
Invisible unicorn
I believe you asked for support for how widespread religious experience is (can't find the quote anymore)?
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1386320
I'm relatively certain that paper doesn't support the idea that "religious experiences" are incredibly common, but whatever - clearly that is not the thrust of your point. As an aside, for the benefit of people who can't access JSTOR through university connections (I'm guessing this is everyone in the thread aside from the two of us), you might want to try to pull specific quotes rather than linking to the abstract of a paper.
On Hume's maxim:
I'm aware of what you meant, but reports of religious/supernatural phenomena are only "big" claims if you're starting from the assumption that whatever belief it supports is false to a religious person, who has lived their whole life experiencing God, has studied God in depth and seen exactly what God can do in people's lives,ssaying it's all their imagination is a huge claim.
"Big" claims are usually defined by how far someone wants to upset what is already known and accepted, and by that measure, I'm sorry to say, the athiest clearly loses out.
Here is where you are wrong. Scientific skepticism suggests that we need to treat all things as if they are false until they are shown to be true (and even then, to keep challenging and questioning). This is the same whether it is God, or the unicorn, or the special theory of relativity, or the Australian Civil War, or Bigfoot, or evolution by natural selection, or aliens. You cannot start with the position that "well, god exists, therefore we don't need to challenge whether he exists or not". It's just not logically sound.
You're falling into the fallacy of chronological snobbery, which states that because an idea is already popular it must be the starting point. This is not the case - if I walked into a classroom and told everyone that 2+2=5, you would not expect that idea to carry any more weight than the second person who told everyone that 2+2=4. Chronological snobbery is a genetic fallacy and is logically inconsistent. How big a claim is in this context, is absolutely not about how much it challenges an already existing hypothesis - it is about how little it fits with other established theories about how the world works.
For starters, if you look at things objectively, you have literally no evidence which solely supports the idea of the existence of God - none whatsoever. The only claim of evidence that even passes logical muster is personal experience, which as I am attempting to explain is not good evidence, because it's far more likely to be a symptom of mental illness or simply the malfunctioning of the brain - which are things we do know to exist and to be relatively commonplace.
What is a much more difficult theory to substantiate? The existence of a supernatural being who is supposedly omnipotent but who never shows up in experimental testing, who created the world in a way that we know to be scientifically implausible, who appears not to interact with the world in any measurable way, and whose supposed existence is only supported by bronze-age tribal texts which are not all that less farfetched than others of the same kind which have fallen out of favour? Or that occasionally peoples' brains don't work properly?
Have you ever seen a miracle? An actual miracle, which can't be explained by scientific means? Honestly? There are millions of dollars of prize money waiting for you if you have. If you haven't - well, ever thought that maybe you were wrong? I understand that the christian community gates their thought incredibly carefully, and provides so much self-reinforcing groupthink that it is very difficult to see past it. But honestly taking the time to look for things in your life that aren't subject to confirmation bias is the first step.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html
This is very, very important when discussing religion. This fallacy is made by religious people all the time, cf. the Invisible Gardener.
I'm aware of what the term itself means, I don't understand what you mean by using it as an argument against a non-literal interpretation.
If one, or two, or more stories in the bible are manifestedly not true, doesn't this call into question the literalism and authority of the bible? If you justify the untruth as "poetic license", what authority do other accounts - for example, of Jesus's miracles - have? If the reports of Jesus's miracles are not true, then what do you have to base your faith on?
My version of the argument goes a bit more like this:
1) Russel's teapot and similar arguments invariably invoke something that no one has ever reported seeing and would never think to look for.
2) People have reported directly experiencing God. It's quite commonplace.
3) Therefore Russel is using a flawed analogy.
What I'm trying to point out is that Russel's teapot established the need for an initial reason to look for something, not an absolute burden of proof.
Actually Russell's teapot is an illustration of the idea that all positive claims need to be based on proof. The burden therefore lies on the person making the claim, not the person who is calling that claim into question.
Consider this:
Suppose I'm traveling to a war torn country. While there I see a what looks like a teapot in the middle of the street. Before I can investigate further sirens sound and I am forced to evacuate the area. When I make it back (I'm very interested in teapots it seems . . . ) the area has been bombed and the teapot is gone.
I cannot prove or disprove that teapot existed any more than I can prove Russel's teapot orbiting Mars. Am I then going to decide I must have halucinated a teapot and it didn't actually exist? Of course not! No reasonable person would.
Suppose it was someone else who saw the teapot in the street. Now things are a little fuzzier, but there is still no reason to assume that they are wrong based solely on the fact they cannot scientifically prove something.
This argument is not a "proof" God exists, it's a rebutal to Russel's Teapot.
But you wouldn't expect anyone else to believe that the teapot exists. You may continue to believe such a thing, but the fact is that if someone doubted your claim you would have no way to back it up. When you make a substantive claim like "God exists", you should be prepared to justify that position when a person who has not had your experiences (or, in this case, a person who has had those experiences but rejects them in favour of a more scientific position) challenges it.
A further note on scientific proof, as it regaurds religion:
You cannot scientifically proove that you ate dinner last Friday, I cannot scientifically prove that my wife loves me, or that I love my wife. Nor can criminal charges be proven scientifically. This does not mean that you're annorexic, my wife and I don't love each other and that all convicted felons are innocent.
Not being able to prove something scientifically means only that another method must be used to establish whether or not something is true. Science makes no claims about the veracity of such things.
Special pleading. The existence of a god should be subject to scrutiny. If it isn't allowed to be, then it is a belief that carries the same weight as the idea that at the atomic level interactions between matter are conducted by fairies. If you claim that you do not need to prove that your god exists, then the rest of the world is no more obliged to take you seriously than they are the fairy-advocate.
Fine-tuned Universe
Let's take an example:
The force of gravity is widely accepted to be controlled by one of the universal constants, and it's easy to visualize, so I'll use gravity for my example.
If gravity was stronger than it currently is, all matter in the universe would be pulled together, and collapse into a singularity. If you increase gravity further beyond that, you still get the same result--all the universe, compressed into a singularity.
If gravity was weaker, then all matter in the universe would disperse out into infinity. Again, making it weaker beyond that makes no difference on the end result.
So what we have is a finite range in which life is feasable, over an infinite possible range of values. Any finite number divided by infinity equals zero. Our universe is quite literally impossible unless either a) there is some sort of underlying guidance or b) one presumes infinite universes.
Niether one of these is a testable assumption. The anthropic principle makes no difference, it's still impossible.
Your mathematics are flawed. The universe's existence is clearly not literally impossible, because it exists. That much is testable. The mistake you are making is the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity - for example, it is like arguing that you cannot possibly have just won the lottery with your winning ticket because the odds against it are so high. You're also trying to divide by an infinite number, and you're claiming that the result you get when you do so is zero. In addition, you are making the statistical mistake of assuming that getting a particular result is any more special than getting a random result - it is like arguing that because the odds against winning the lottery are so huge, no-one can win the lottery. In fact, you are yet again falling over the anthropic principle - if we were not in the universe to comment on how seemingly improbable it is, we wouldn't be able to make the comment. Put another way, the only comments that could logically be made about the universe's conditions are those that comment on the universe's conditions being able to support said comments.
side note that doesn't really fit with either
Atheism invariably invokes "possitive claims" when trying to establish burden of proof, yet almost invariably there follows immediately afterward a series of possitve claims which are boldly made and left completely unsupported.
Here's a sampling of such claims taken from this very forum:
-Religious experiences are due to delusions, yet atheists are somehow immune (or at least highly resistant) to this phenomena
In fact, I have pointed out plenty of non-religious examples of delusions. I wouldn't hypothesise that atheists are specifically immune to delusions any more than anyone else, but rationalists may be more able to see them for what they are. I forgive you if you've missed the examples I gave, though, as they are hidden in walls of text.
-Scientists can make cells from protein.
-(insert war here) was caused by religion.
Not only are these invariably unsupported, but when invesitgated they're almost invariably unsupportable. I've looked for weeks and cannot find a single scientific paper that supports the first, the second is just nonsense apparently based off of a misinterpretation of the Miller experiement (which Dr. Miller himself said was not good evidence for the "primordia soup" http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/461/primordial-recipe-spark-and-stir).
I can't go through every war here, but to name a couple:
-The conflict in the middle east: Isreal is one of the least religious nations in the world. Given that, blaming this on religion doesn't make sense.
-First Crusade: started when Europe united against an invading empire, which was in turn trying to expand their territory.
I'm not trying to rant here, I'm just trying to point out that really, you're holding religious persons to a much higher standard of "proof" then you're holding yourselves.
If I have made these unsupported statements myself, then I am happy to be challenged on them. Science is about being happy to be proved wrong, because then you have learned something you didn't know before and you have improved your understanding. As an aside, I should point out that constructing strawmen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) and accusations of hypocrisy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque) are both logical fallacies.
-
invisible unicorn
I'm relatively certain that paper doesn't support the idea that "religious experiences" are incredibly common, but whatever - clearly that is not the thrust of your point. As an aside, for the benefit of people who can't access JSTOR through university connections (I'm guessing this is everyone in the thread aside from the two of us), you might want to try to pull specific quotes rather than linking to the abstract of a paper.
Try the very first line of the abstract, which anyone clicking the link can read.
Studies in the United States show that "ecstatic," "paranormal," or "religious experience" is much more widespread than contemporary descriptions of reality would lead us to suppose.
Seems pretty clear cut to me.
If one, or two, or more stories in the bible are manifestedly not true, doesn't this call into question the literalism and authority of the bible? If you justify the untruth as "poetic license", what authority do other accounts - for example, of Jesus's miracles - have? If the reports of Jesus's miracles are not true, then what do you have to base your faith on?
Okay, this is not the way non-literal interpretations work. I'll make a new topic on it when I get a chance, as it's too much to go into here.
From your own link on accusations of hypocrisy:
Legitimate use
Not all uses of tu quoque arguments involve logical fallacy. One convenient and not fallacious way [to use tu quoque] is by pointing out the similarities between the activity of the criticizer and the activity about which he is being questioned. To label one [something] and not the other is ... itself a fallacy [of equivocation]. [...]
By the source you provided, I used the argument correctly.
On Straw man arguments:
A straw man argument is when one claims "X" is what their opponent says then refute "X" to make themself look good. If one can point to when their opponent actually made the claim, then it is not a straw man.
here's the source threads:
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,6543.60.html
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,12675.36.html
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,10126.0.html
Absolutely not. Atheists do not need to prove anything, because they do not make the positive claims about the world that theists do.
Atheism must be able to show that it is possible to have a logically consistent view of the world without invoking either God, god(s) or any untestable claims. Any possitive claims made while doing so must have at least some support. Otherwise an athiest possition is no more logical than a theist one.
If I have made these unsupported statements myself, then I am happy to be challenged on them.
here's a list
I wouldn't hypothesise that atheists are specifically immune to delusions any more than anyone else, but rationalists may be more able to see them for what they are.
There is no reason why someone who happens to agree with you would necessarily be more likely to correctly interperet events. It's just as likely that a "rationalist" us dismissing a real phenomena or incorrectly percieving something. Amnesia following highly emotional events is quite well documented. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VS3-454797J-7T&_user=3366836&_coverDate=04/30/1997&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1499942073&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000058403&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=3366836&md5=6dfe2cb17ed9dcd87d6d8678d09cc6b7&searchtype=a
Quoth the abstract "Results from recent studies of retrograde amnesia following damage to the hippocampal complex of human and non-human subjects have shown that retrograde amnesia is extensive and can encompass much of a subject's lifetime; the degree of loss may depend upon the type of memory assessed."
Your mathematics are flawed.
This should have been easy to support, simply point out the math error and your on your way. The limit of n/x as x -> (inifinity) is equal to zero. I used a shorthand notation, in saying n/(infinity) = 0 but the point holds.
For starters, if you look at things objectively, you have literally no evidence which solely supports the idea of the existence of God - none whatsoever
Frequently cited, and invariably followed by something to the effect of "well, that doesn't count because . . ."
This isn't true of all of them, and specifically there are a number that we know to be untrue. I can dig up examples of these if you like, but this post is already long enough as it stands. Regardless, whether or not the bible vaguely follows the historical timeline we can establish means nothing on the question of the existence of God. It simply means that the bible is a collection of bronze-iron age stories passed down through a certain cultural group, of which we have a number of examples across the world.
Sure, bring on examples.
Alternatively, it could admit also to the well-supported theory that occasionally the brain malfunctions and causes hallucinations or emotional upsets. Someone having the experience of being abducted by aliens in the middle of the night does not necessarily point to this as having been the case, especially when there is a more likely cause.
A re-phrase of the first, still unsupported.
Actually, it does, and that just won't fly, sorry. People's experiences are just as vulnerable to perception as everything else.
Your only ever response on why argument ad populum might apply to eyewitness testamonies. Even though your own source on the subject never mentions anything about eyewitness testamonies, nor do any other sources that I can find.
And here's a few that aren't from you, but they're from other people arguing alongside you.
(feel free to say so if you disagree with any of these, I'm not trying to force you into any possition, just trying to show that this is sort of a wide-spread phenomena.)
That's not 100% correct. Followers of religion already believe in the supernatural, so for them seeing weird stuff is more natural so to say. If I saw a "miracle", I would be very skeptical even though it felt real to me, and would try to find explanations from science. Religious people however would most likely instantly embrace the miracle as a work of God because it strengthens what they believed in the first place. They want it to be true, so they believe it.
During human history, people have done some horrible things in the name of religion, horrible things that they would have never done if there hadn't been a "higher power" telling them to do so. Current example is suicide bombers. You would never get these people to do these terrible acts if there weren't the promise of martyr's afterlife with a bunch of virgins.
I think that's a very weak argument because you make it sound like atheists refuse to see the facts, when there are currently zero actual evidence for the existence of some higher power. If something like what you describe there would happen, I think every single atheist in the world would change their opinion, because it's the lack of evidence that made them atheists in the first place, and Archangels would be very solid evidence.
The point you are trying to make works when we talk about religious people. No matter how much evidence you present to them, it will never be enough because religion is based on faith alone. If you took away a religion from a believer, you would basically take away his/her soul and the reason for his/her existence.
They all claim to have experienced some unlogical occurance which they have no proof for, they expect others to believe them and those that do, make the shaman feel important.
Since mankind is nothing more then an ape evolution, and often survived by mimicing other apes behaviour, some of those who didn't believe the "flying green octopus" man, start to join his followers due to the "hey so many ppl believe him, maybe it is true". In other words, herd behaviour + ignorance create followers.
Those followers tell others about the amazing flying green octupus guy ("fgog" from now on), and ask them to join them, some do some dont, so that fgog has an ever growing flok of irrathional and illogical, often delusional believers surrounding him, most of which end up tell that fgogs ramblings to their offspring and say its the truth, the brainwashed offspring tells that to others, making the flok grow even more.
Fgog, now a "mighty" person gets older and eventually dies of old age, the fgog followers proceed to mourne for that persons death, and continue to distribute his words as the "truth", generations of brainwashed offspring later, no one is around that knew fgog, but they all believe in the written down, often altered, stories about him, resulting in thousands of fgog followers who know/believe that those stories are true, and that anyone who state the oposite is blasphemous.
ergo: fgog=shaman=founder of a religion
Religion= mass brainwashed acception of rathional void, discrimination "those who believe are better then non believers, only those who believe have certain rights", control over believers, who are "forced" to undergo some rituals and are looked down upon if they dont.
If you want to know the context of any of these let me know and I'll point you to the relevant thread.
Fine-tuned universe
Odds of 0% are not the same as odds of one in a million, or one in a billion or even one in 6.02*10^26.
Odds of 0% means it will never happen. Yes, I used a shorthand notation in "dividing by infinity" but the point remains that it is impossible to have a viable life-bearing universe by random chance. Therefore, unless you're assuming infinite universes (whereupon it becomes the limit of n/n as n -> (infinity) = 1) the anthropic principle cannot explain a balanced universe.
The universe exists, so it is clearly possible, but it is also clear that it is not possible by the mechanism you propose.
And now an aside I really didn't want to have to make (honestly, I mean that. I really wish I could avoid asking this.):
I really have to aks at this point, are you really reading this and considering things? Or are you just skimming and then listing whatever logical falacy is closest?
I ask because you keep asking about things I've already explained multiple times, you keep providing links to descripptions of logical fallacies that clearly state I have used the argument appropriately, and your replies have not been accurate to what I actually said.
The big clincher though, was when you claimed that the source I provided didn't support my point when the very first sentence of the article clearly stated my point in black and white terms.
If you don't want to/can't put the time in to check sources etc. that's fine. There's nothing wrong with that. I'm busy too. But don't claim to have investigated something and found it false if you haven't read it.
Again, I wish there was a more delicate way I could have phrased this. I'm not usually this blunt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*edit*
On my way home today I realized that some of my usage of the terms "atheist" or "atheism" etc. might be a little misleading.
I know I often come across rather harsh on atheism in general, but I honestly think that it is perfectly possible to have an entirely logically defensible atheistic position. I simply do not think that hiding behind Russel's teapot is one of those positions.
I tend to use the term "atheist" to refer to specific branches of thought within atheism which I am currently arguing against. I often use the term "atheist" because to my knowledge there are no more specific terms for the differing branches of thought within atheism.
-
FYI, Bertrand Russell's last name is spelled with two l's, so it would be "Russell's Teapot."
-
If gravity was weaker, then all matter in the universe would disperse out into infinity. Again, making it weaker beyond that makes no difference on the end result.
So what we have is a finite range in which life is feasable, over an infinite possible range of values.
Clearly there is no infinite range of possible values, since universe would disperse is gravity was too weak and collapse if it was too strong.
And is there any quarantee that universe will not collapse or disperse as it is?
I'm kind of interested what is it that you would consider to be logical atheistic position?
-
If gravity was weaker, then all matter in the universe would disperse out into infinity. Again, making it weaker beyond that makes no difference on the end result.
So what we have is a finite range in which life is feasable, over an infinite possible range of values.
Clearly there is no infinite range of possible values, since universe would disperse is gravity was too weak and collapse if it was too strong.
And is there any quarantee that universe will not collapse or disperse as it is?
I'm kind of interested what is it that you would consider to be logical atheistic position?
Not to mention the fact that its only life as we know it that wouldn't exist, it is quite possible to have different life forms in different environments.
-
Also atheism is the lack of belief in a god, not the belief that there is no god. There are strong atheists also refered to as gnostic atheists and anti-theists who do make the claim that they know that god does not exist; however, unless your position is that of an anti-theist then, as an atheist, you have no need to prove anything. (Btw agnostic atheist is someone who simply lacks belief in a god.)
-
If one, or two, or more stories in the bible are manifestedly not true, doesn't this call into question the literalism and authority of the bible? If you justify the untruth as "poetic license", what authority do other accounts - for example, of Jesus's miracles - have? If the reports of Jesus's miracles are not true, then what do you have to base your faith on?
Okay, this is not the way non-literal interpretations work. I'll make a new topic on it when I get a chance, as it's too much to go into here.
It doesn't matter what interpretation you use. Once you decide to claim that something is infallible, one single strike against it ruins the entire thing. You aren't allowed to pick and choose.
Absolutely not. Atheists do not need to prove anything, because they do not make the positive claims about the world that theists do.
Atheism must be able to show that it is possible to have a logically consistent view of the world without invoking either God, god(s) or any untestable claims. Any possitive claims made while doing so must have at least some support. Otherwise an athiest possition is no more logical than a theist one.
An atheist position doesn't make any positive claims. It would be more accurately defined as 'lack of belief', not belief that there is no god. This difference is key.
For starters, if you look at things objectively, you have literally no evidence which solely supports the idea of the existence of God - none whatsoever
Frequently cited, and invariably followed by something to the effect of "well, that doesn't count because . . ."
You say that like it's not allowed to disprove something. Maybe this example will clear things up.
Person A: Well leprechauns exist because I feel they do.
Person B: Well, that doesn't count because your feelings have no relevance to the question of whether or not leprechauns exist.
Fine-tuned universe
Odds of 0% are not the same as odds of one in a million, or one in a billion or even one in 6.02*10^26.
Odds of 0% means it will never happen. Yes, I used a shorthand notation in "dividing by infinity" but the point remains that it is impossible to have a viable life-bearing universe by random chance. Therefore, unless you're assuming infinite universes (whereupon it becomes the limit of n/n as n -> (infinity) = 1) the anthropic principle cannot explain a balanced universe.
The universe exists, so it is clearly possible, but it is also clear that it is not possible by the mechanism you propose.
I respond with this:
[Even though] life as we know it would not exist if any one of several of the constants of physics were just slightly different, [we] cannot prove that some other form of life is feasible with a different set of constants. Anyone who insists that our form of life is the only one conceivable is making a claim based on no evidence and no theory.
-Victor Stenger
Basically, saying the god did it would just be trying to cover up something we don't yet understand.
I know I often come across rather harsh on atheism in general, but I honestly think that it is perfectly possible to have an entirely logically defensible atheistic position. I simply do not think that hiding behind Russel's teapot is one of those positions.
Russell's teapot is perfectly valid and I'm fairly certain you believe it as much as I do.
If I were to claim that leprechauns exist but I failed to produce any evidence, you would continue to believe that they don't exist.
If I were to claim that unicorns exist but I failed to produce any evidence, you would continue to believe that they don't exist.
If I were to claim that the loch ness monster exists but I failed to produce any evidence, you would continue to believe that it doesn't exist.
I could continue but I think you get the point. The reason you don't believe in them is that non belief is the default position, and that's what Russell's Teapot tries to demonstrate.
I tend to use the term "atheist" to refer to specific branches of thought within atheism which I am currently arguing against. I often use the term "atheist" because to my knowledge there are no more specific terms for the differing branches of thought within atheism.
There are a variety of different modes of thought within atheism, such as nihilism and Humanism, but generally any atheist groups you might find are less rigidly defined than religious branches.
-
Clearly there is no infinite range of possible values, since universe would disperse is gravity was too weak and collapse if it was too strong.
And is there any quarantee that universe will not collapse or disperse as it is?
[Even though] life as we know it would not exist if any one of several of the constants of physics were just slightly different, [we] cannot prove that some other form of life is feasible with a different set of constants. Anyone who insists that our form of life is the only one conceivable is making a claim based on no evidence and no theory.
-Victor Stenger
There are many possible explanations as to why our universe ended up the way it did, the problem is that none of them, including the ones you mention, are testable, or falsifiable.
Then why is it okay to disqualify God due to being unfalsifiable but not the others?
The point here isn't that this once and for all proves the hand of God at work in our world, merely that the "untestable hypothesis" often cited in theological arguments becomes unavoidable, even for atheists.
*edit*
The universe we live in will disperse- eventually. If the force of gravity were outside of that slim range the universe would disperse/collapse many, many orders of magnitude faster than it is. As gravity went to either infinity or negative infinity the time it took the universe to die would go to zero.
As to the alternate forms of life, in a collapsed and/or dispersed universe there would be no complex interactions between matter of any form. In the case of a collapsed universe all the matter in existence would occupy the same point, and in a dispersed universe only stray particles would exist, which would then continue to spread out to infinity until the density of the universe became zero. In neither case are the complicated systems necessary to form life possible.
Absolutely not. Atheists do not need to prove anything, because they do not make the positive claims about the world that theists do.
Atheism must be able to show that it is possible to have a logically consistent view of the world without invoking either God, god(s) or any untestable claims. Any positive claims made while doing so must have at least some support. Otherwise an atheist position is no more logical than a theist one.
An atheist position doesn't make any positive claims. It would be more accurately defined as 'lack of belief', not belief that there is no god. This difference is key.
You haven't addressed my concern though. In order for this position not to be inherently hypocritical an atheist must be able to explain the universe, and prove his explanations true. If at any point you come to a phenomena you can't explain from an atheistic viewpoint or that you can't test your explanation for, then your position is logically no stronger.
For starters, if you look at things objectively, you have literally no evidence which solely supports the idea of the existence of God - none whatsoever
Frequently cited, and invariably followed by something to the effect of "well, that doesn't count because . . ."
You say that like it's not allowed to disprove something. Maybe this example will clear things up.
Person A: Well leprechauns exist because I feel they do.
Person B: Well, that doesn't count because your feelings have no relevance to the question of whether or not leprechauns exist.
The problem isn't with trying to refute an argument. The problem is you've already decided that the argument is invalid before you've even seen what it is. The declaration is made that the evidence is invalid before the atheist even looks at it. Imagine going to a trial, and the jury said they wanted to vote the defendant innocent before any evidence had been presented.
It's logically unsupportable.
If I can use an example from your own post, QuantumT, you have replied basically saying my explanation of Biblical interpretations is invalid before I've posted it. If there is a way to be more close-minded in a debate than this I'm unaware of what it is.
(p.s. not all Christians believe the Bible is infaliable)
I know I often come across rather harsh on atheism in general, but I honestly think that it is perfectly possible to have an entirely logically defensible atheistic position. I simply do not think that hiding behind Russel's teapot is one of those positions.
Russell's teapot is perfectly valid and I'm fairly certain you believe it as much as I do.
If I were to claim that leprechauns exist but I failed to produce any evidence, you would continue to believe that they don't exist.
If I were to claim that unicorns exist but I failed to produce any evidence, you would continue to believe that they don't exist.
If I were to claim that the loch ness monster exists but I failed to produce any evidence, you would continue to believe that it doesn't exist.
Does a claim require some evidence? yes. Is any claim that hasn't been exhaustively and irrefuably proven true automatically false? No.
This is the problem.
Russel's teapot shows us that there needs to be some reason to expect something could be true, yet many forms of modern atheism are taking this to mean anyone who would believe in any sort of religion must first irrefutably prove their beliefs true. This is a ludicrous way to live your life.
Consider:
Person A :"I love you."
Person B: "You're lying- you cannot prove that you love me. In fact, there is no proof that love exists at all. Therefore there is no such thing as love. You must be trying to brainwash me with this myth of 'love'."
Person A: " . . . what?"
Basically what I'm getting at is that something can be likely true without being proven true.
I'm kind of interested what is it that you would consider to be logical atheistic position?
Essentially, there are no clear cut boundaries as to what constitutes "enough" evidence for one belief versus another, and given that someone could easily come to a very different conclusion than I have, even after reviewing the same evidence. After all, how do you decide which one should carry more weight in how you live: a personal experience or a logical argument? There are some of both that weigh in on either side, so how do you decide where the scales tip?
Especially if someone has had different life experiences than I have, they could easily come the conclusion that an atheist or agnostic position is the most sound one, since no hard and fast rules exist on how to make such decisions.
Just out curiosity, how do some of the Teapot Atheists (I hope that's not offensive, I'm just trying to find a term to distinguish Russell's teapot from all atheism) out there react to this:
Nothing exists
Simply put, let's take the ultimate "no positive claims" stance: nothing exists whatsoever. Not you, not me, not the thoughts in your head.
Not only does this make no positive claims, it's also completely unfalsifiable: in order to prove anything exists, we must first presume that something else exists.
If there's another term people would prefer I used than "Teapot atheist" let me know. Others are of course free to react as well, I'm just particularly curious about that specific group's reaction.
-
There are many possible explanations as to why our universe ended up the way it did, the problem is that none of them, including the ones you mention, are testable, or falsifiable.
Then why is it okay to disqualify God due to being unfalsifiable but not the others?
The point here isn't that this once and for all proves the hand of God at work in our world, merely that the "untestable hypothesis" often cited in theological arguments becomes unavoidable, even for atheists.
*edit*
The universe we live in will disperse- eventually. If the force of gravity were outside of that slim range the universe would disperse/collapse many, many orders of magnitude faster than it is. As gravity went to either infinity or negative infinity the time it took the universe to die would go to zero.
As to the alternate forms of life, in a collapsed and/or dispersed universe there would be no complex interactions between matter of any form. In the case of a collapsed universe all the matter in existence would occupy the same point, and in a dispersed universe only stray particles would exist, which would then continue to spread out to infinity until the density of the universe became zero. In neither case are the complicated systems necessary to form life possible.
Most of this, however, is just conjecture based on our somewhat limited view of the universe. Maybe when we understand the universe better we'll know why the constants took on these values. Stenger's idea is unfalsifiable, but it is only offered as an alternate perspective to the also unfalsifiable idea of divine influence.
An atheist position doesn't make any positive claims. It would be more accurately defined as 'lack of belief', not belief that there is no god. This difference is key.
You haven't addressed my concern though. In order for this position not to be inherently hypocritical an atheist must be able to explain the universe, and prove his explanations true. If at any point you come to a phenomena you can't explain from an atheistic viewpoint or that you can't test your explanation for, then your position is logically no stronger.
Except that as an atheist, "I don't know" is an acceptable response to a phenomena I can't explain. In fact, it's the default one.
This is in contrast to the typical theist response to an unexplainable phenomena, which is frequently "god did it."
For starters, if you look at things objectively, you have literally no evidence which solely supports the idea of the existence of God - none whatsoever
Frequently cited, and invariably followed by something to the effect of "well, that doesn't count because . . ."
You say that like it's not allowed to disprove something. Maybe this example will clear things up.
Person A: Well leprechauns exist because I feel they do.
Person B: Well, that doesn't count because your feelings have no relevance to the question of whether or not leprechauns exist.
The problem isn't with trying to refute an argument. The problem is you've already decided that the argument is invalid before you've even seen what it is. The declaration is made that the evidence is invalid before the atheist even looks at it. Imagine going to a trial, and the jury said they wanted to vote the defendant innocent before any evidence had been presented.
It's logically unsupportable.
At what point in there was the argument ignored? An argument was put forth, and it was succinctly refuted.
And lets be honest here, do you always fully examine the arguments of anyone who comes up to you for all possible truth, or do you dismiss some of them? If you do always fully examine them, then I claim that I'm invisible, but only when nobody is looking.
The reason why you might not fully examine every claim is rather hilariously shown below:
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/the_data_so_far.png)
If I can use an example from your own post, QuantumT, you have replied basically saying my explanation of Biblical interpretations is invalid before I've posted it. If there is a way to be more close-minded in a debate than this I'm unaware of what it is.
(p.s. not all Christians believe the Bible is infaliable)
Saying that the Bible isn't infallible is fine, it's just that it loses any special place in the world. Once you let go of it's infallibility, it's just a book. Maybe it's a really good book, but still just a book.
However, I do apologize for cutting you off at the pass, so if you'd like to offer up your interpretation, go ahead.
*snip*
Does a claim require some evidence? yes. Is any claim that hasn't been exhaustively and irrefuably proven true automatically false? No.
This is the problem.
Russel's teapot shows us that there needs to be some reason to expect something could be true, yet many forms of modern atheism are taking this to mean anyone who would believe in any sort of religion must first irrefutably prove their beliefs true. This is a ludicrous way to live your life.
Consider:
Person A :"I love you."
Person B: "You're lying- you cannot prove that you love me. In fact, there is no proof that love exists at all. Therefore there is no such thing as love. You must be trying to brainwash me with this myth of 'love'."
Person A: " . . . what?"
Basically what I'm getting at is that something can be likely true without being proven true.
Sure things don't necessarily have to be proven true (actually it's impossible to prove anything about our universe is "true"), but they do need 2 things.
1) They MUST be falsifiable. Anything that is unfalsifiable (as most religion is), is inherently unscientific.
2) There must be some evidence to suppose them to be true (Russell's Teapot). Furthermore, the amount of evidence that is required to make this supposition is proportional to the size of the claim. As Daxx eloquently stated earlier:
Ah, you misunderstand. It doesn't mean it must be false, only that the standard of proof needed to establish it is true is proportional to the claims it makes about the world. For example, if your friend told you he had bought a new shirt, you probably wouldn't need to see the shirt in order to accept his claim as being probably true. If, however, he had claimed to have bought a space station, you might be more skeptical.
Essentially, there are no clear cut boundaries as to what constitutes "enough" evidence for one belief versus another, and given that someone could easily come to a very different conclusion than I have, even after reviewing the same evidence. After all, how do you decide which one should carry more weight in how you live: a personal experience or a logical argument? There are some of both that weigh in on either side, so how do you decide where the scales tip?
Especially if someone has had different life experiences than I have, they could easily come the conclusion that an atheist or agnostic position is the most sound one, since no hard and fast rules exist on how to make such decisions.
When it comes to personal experience vs. logical argument, I would tip the scales very heavily towards logic. After all, people's senses fail them all of the time.
Just out curiosity, how do some of the Teapot Atheists (I hope that's not offensive, I'm just trying to find a term to distinguish Russell's teapot from all atheism) out there react to this:
Nothing exists
Simply put, let's take the ultimate "no positive claims" stance: nothing exists whatsoever. Not you, not me, not the thoughts in your head.
Not only does this make no positive claims, it's also completely unfalsifiable: in order to prove anything exists, we must first presume that something else exists.
Remember: unfalsifiable=bad
And:Cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore I am)
-Descartes
If there's another term people would prefer I used than "Teapot atheist" let me know. Others are of course free to react as well, I'm just particularly curious about that specific group's reaction.
Generally, the term is rationalist.
-
I have a question for original poster. Did you look up refutations/responses to your claim? Or did you but you didn't find any of them convincing
-
@theloconate:
I'm not entirely sure which “claim” you're referring to. Do you mean counters to my arguments in general?
I do make it a point to try and read up on atheistic authors and their arguments (indeed, I was doing so before I became Christian) and have not found any that I find convincing.
However, I think you may be confused on one point—for the most part I am not citing these arguments out of a book or another source. These are my own responses after reading through a given argument and considering it. Therefore, for many of these, there is no published attempt at a rebuttal for me to look up.
Invisible pink unicorn
Let me try to break down what I'm trying to get at with the teapot, as I don't think it's really gotten across yet
This is the scientific method in it's most basic form:
A Make an observation
B Hypothesize about why you observed that
C Test your hypothesis experimentally
Russell's teapot established the need for A in order for an idea to be given consideration. As a result, you are insisting that I must provide C.
1) They MUST be falsifiable. Anything that is unfalsifiable (as most religion is), is inherently unscientific.
Inherently unscientific and inherently untrue are NOT equivalent. Neither are inherently unscientific and inherently not worth consideration.
Why do you keep treating them as such?
All something being unscientific means, at least in this context, is that you can't investigate it via the scientific method and so you need to try a different approach.
At what point in there was the argument ignored? An argument was put forth, and it was succinctly refuted.
The problem lies not in the refutation (or attempt at one), but in the fact that the atheist has already decided the the argument to be presented is invalid before having even looked at it.
Consider two jurors being interviewed before being selected for a trial:
The first juror says that she will consider the evidence carefully, that she takes jury duty seriously, and will do her best to decide fairly. She is found acceptable to both the defense and the prosecution.
The second juror, however, starts off his interview with the following speech:
“Oh boy! I've always wanted to send someone to jail! Can I be the one to say 'GUILTY' at the end? I've got this really menacing tone to say it in. Oooohh! Do you think we could get him the death penalty?! Is that legal in this state?”
Clearly the second juror is unacceptable to the defense, because he's already decided on the verdict before he's seen any evidence. If he's in the jury then there's very little hope of a fair trial.
And lets be honest here, do you always fully examine the arguments of anyone who comes up to you for all possible truth, or do you dismiss some of them? If you do always fully examine them, then I claim that I'm invisible, but only when nobody is looking.
Invisibility can be safely dismissed for several reasons:
First, simply on the grounds that it's completely irrelevant—whether you're visible when unobserved or not has absolutely no bearing on how I'd live my life. It makes no difference in how I would act whether you still reflect light or not when I'm not looking at you or not, so it isn't worth my time considering it.
Second, from the context it's abundantly clear that even you don't believe the statement.
Third, I'm not going out of my way to try to argue against the possibility of your invisibility powers. If I was, then I would at least owe you the courtesy of listening to your case before discarding it. There's no way a person can be an expert on every given subject, so we have to choose our battles and simply accept that some things aren't worth debating over.
I could go into more, but the point is that, yes there are valid reasons for not considering something before discarding it, but those reasons don't apply to religion. This also heavily relates back to something I said earlier:
Allow me to demonstrate:
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/dawk911.htm
http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ARTICLEID_CHAR=0C9F4CBB-2B35-221B-628A70E93A04E86C
In the first article (and many others) Dawkins maintains his claim that the absolute entirety of the burden of proof must rest on the religious person, yet in the second one he maintains that he shouldn't have to listen to arguments in favor of religion in order to know that it's false.
What's that? Place the burden of proof on the other party and then not listen to what they have to say? Why I could prove anything using that method. Including the sky being green and the grass being blue.
If I may, I'd like to go into more detail on the concept of “claims of supernatural powers”:
Atheists frequently cite things like this, in part because they want to discredit theism by lumping it in with various “out there” beliefs, and in part because they earnestly think this is true.
The problem is that the uneven distribution doesn't stem from certain claims as being easily grouped as unreliable, but an oddity in the way “supernatural” is classified.
Supernatural is often assumed to mean things that are untestable, unsupported by science or clearly contradictory with known science. Thus, as soon as scientific testing confirms something it immediately becomes no longer “supernatural” but instead science.
Let's have an example:
Around the Renaissance in Europe several disciplines emerged that are now referred to as “pseudo-science”. Among these were two I would like to focus on: alchemy and astrology.
Astrology is (as I'm certain you know) an attempt to predict events based on star positions etc. and alchemy was attempting to turn one substance into another. Both were considered “supernatural” and were given aspects of mysticism.
Then as time went on along comes Mendeleev and a host of other brilliant minds, and suddenly they're able to quantify and predict what changes will take place as different chemicals mix. Alchemy becomes known as chemistry. Suddenly chemistry is proof of what a logical mind can do, whereas astrology is proof that those quacks will believe anything. Nevermind that it was the same quacks who first started investigating both fields.
Not saying you should check your horoscope, as there are several underlying logic faults involved there that I'm certain you don't need pointed out, but in evaluating “supernatural” claims you have, essentially, taken only the failures into account and not the successes.
A more recent case of a “supernatural” thing that science has upheld is acupuncture. After a clinical trial it was found that acupuncture was extremely beneficial, especially in the case of muscle injuries. This is a particularly interesting case right now because (to my knowledge anyway) science has established that acupuncture does work, but it can't fully explain how it works.
Hume's Maxim
The problem with Hume's Maxim is that how you're defining a “big” claim versus a “small” one is largely arbitrary. You're starting from an atheistic worldview, so to you anything inconsistent with that worldview looks like a much bigger claim than anything that is consistent with that worldview.
It's basically a very academic way of stating that you have a confirmation bias.
nothing exists
Unfalsifiable = Bad is sort of the point.
What I'm trying to show here is that the reasoning as to why a theist must be the one carrying the whole burden of proof is inconsistent with itself.
As to Descartes, he started from the assumption that his thoughts exist.
And of course he did—after all what can you be more sure exists than your own thoughts? Yet it is equally impossible to prove that those thoughts exist. This is actually very similar to the way many people experience God.
-
@theloconate:
I'm not entirely sure which “claim” you're referring to. Do you mean counters to my arguments in general?
I do make it a point to try and read up on atheistic authors and their arguments (indeed, I was doing so before I became Christian) and have not found any that I find convincing.
However, I think you may be confused on one point—for the most part I am not citing these arguments out of a book or another source. These are my own responses after reading through a given argument and considering it. Therefore, for many of these, there is no published attempt at a rebuttal for me to look up.
You're right I probably should have used a different term. Yes I did mean that
Yes but you have presented arguments for god in this thread that are well known arguments that have been refuted and i'm asking you whether or not you've researched any responses to them. For example: fine tuned universe is one you provided on this thread and can be dismissed in one sentence. Life can develop in different ways too their environment (assuming that the universe would allow for genetics or something similar). Just to explain a bit more as long as a universe has or can allow for a replicating system that can sometimes change then that universe can have life on it, and that life would be able to evolve to a state in which the universe seems fine tuned to it. And in a counter question: since you think that because it's so unlikely that life would arise naturally then why would there be so much empty space in space if a god did it? And why would he allow stars to die killing whatever life existed on the planets around it? Also how can you say that there is an infinite possible range of values for gravity (since that was the only variable you chose) when we only have a variable of one (which is a different one lined refutation of the fine tuning argument). My question was simply whether you had looked up refutations to your argument like the ones seen above
-
For example: fine tuned universe is one you provided on this thread and can be dismissed in one sentence. Life can develop in different ways too their environment (assuming that the universe would allow for genetics or something similar).
An explanation being short is not the same as an explanation being accurate.
The entire point of the fine-tuned universe argument is that it would not allow for any complex interactions, including genetics or anything similar.
Let's look at an example where the force of gravity was stronger than it is currently:
What would happen is the entirety of the universe would collapse in on itself, forming a singularity. That means that all the matter in the universe would occupy a single point.
You can't have complex chemical interactions necessary to form anything resembling a genetic code under those circumstances. Heck, you can't have any chemical reactions at all.
And in a counter question: since you think that because it's so unlikely that life would arise naturally then why would there be so much empty space in space if a god did it? And why would he allow stars to die killing whatever life existed on the planets around it?
Firstly, it isn't unlikely that a randomly generated universe could support life. It's impossible.
Why would God be averse to empty space? It's not as if an omnipotent being needs to be concerned with efficiency of space usage.
As to stars dying, so far we only have a sample size of one planet with life on it, and we haven't been wiped out yet. On a more serious note though, dying is as natural a part of the universe as being born. One of the major teachings of most religions is that death is not the end, but merely a transition from one state to another. Therefore an omnipotent deity would not particularly dread death either.
Also how can you say that there is an infinite possible range of values for gravity (since that was the only variable you chose) when we only have a variable of one (which is a different one lined refutation of the fine tuning argument).
If you assume a limited range of possible values then you need an explanation as to why only certain values are possible.
Simply put, even if we had a theory of everything which could accurately predict every single event in the universe, explaining everything in our lives with equations, you still can't explain where those equations came from.
I used gravity as an example, merely because it's easy to explain (you try writing a discussion of the strong nuclear force the average person can follow) and because gravity by itself is enough. If I can demonstrate that the value of one universal constant shows the universe couldn't have been put together randomly, then there's no point in repeating myself for the other constants.
The concept can, in fact, go far beyond even just the values of various constants. Why should F=ma? Or why are matter and energy conserved?
Basically any universe created by random values being selected for constants, and equations being built randomly would invariably end up being completely uniform. You would not end up with complex interactions and variability of substance that could give birth to something that could be described as "life". The chances of anything else are infinitely small (i.e. zero).
The only way around it is to either assume a) the universe isn't random, something guided it or b) there are infinite universes, and we're only aware of this one because it's the only one we can exist in.
Neither of these two are scientifically testable. So why are you assuming the one that also fits with other observations must be false?
-
For example: fine tuned universe is one you provided on this thread and can be dismissed in one sentence. Life can develop in different ways too their environment (assuming that the universe would allow for genetics or something similar).
An explanation being short is not the same as an explanation being accurate.
The entire point of the fine-tuned universe argument is that it would not allow for any complex interactions, including genetics or anything similar.
Let's look at an example where the force of gravity was stronger than it is currently:
What would happen is the entirety of the universe would collapse in on itself, forming a singularity. That means that all the matter in the universe would occupy a single point.
You can't have complex chemical interactions necessary to form anything resembling a genetic code under those circumstances. Heck, you can't have any chemical reactions at all.
You're supposing this based on our current, limited understanding of the universe.
For one thing, we don't have a good way of combining quantum mechanics with general relativity. It's possible that there are complex interactions that take place within the confines of the uncertainty principle.
And in a counter question: since you think that because it's so unlikely that life would arise naturally then why would there be so much empty space in space if a god did it? And why would he allow stars to die killing whatever life existed on the planets around it?
Firstly, it isn't unlikely that a randomly generated universe could support life. It's impossible.
A positive claim not supported by evidence.
Why would God be averse to empty space? It's not as if an omnipotent being needs to be concerned with efficiency of space usage.
On that note, why would an omnipotent god give a crap about a bunch of carbon based life forms?
As to stars dying, so far we only have a sample size of one planet with life on it, and we haven't been wiped out yet. On a more serious note though, dying is as natural a part of the universe as being born. One of the major teachings of most religions is that death is not the end, but merely a transition from one state to another. Therefore an omnipotent deity would not particularly dread death either.
Death is a transition of states. You transition from the state of being alive to the state of being dead.
Also how can you say that there is an infinite possible range of values for gravity (since that was the only variable you chose) when we only have a variable of one (which is a different one lined refutation of the fine tuning argument).
If you assume a limited range of possible values then you need an explanation as to why only certain values are possible.
Perhaps we'll figure out an explanation as science advances.
Simply put, even if we had a theory of everything which could accurately predict every single event in the universe, explaining everything in our lives with equations, you still can't explain where those equations came from.
I used gravity as an example, merely because it's easy to explain (you try writing a discussion of the strong nuclear force the average person can follow) and because gravity by itself is enough. If I can demonstrate that the value of one universal constant shows the universe couldn't have been put together randomly, then there's no point in repeating myself for the other constants.
The concept can, in fact, go far beyond even just the values of various constants. Why should F=ma? Or why are matter and energy conserved?
Why do they have to come from somewhere?
Basically any universe created by random values being selected for constants, and equations being built randomly would invariably end up being completely uniform. You would not end up with complex interactions and variability of substance that could give birth to something that could be described as "life". The chances of anything else are infinitely small (i.e. zero).
The only way around it is to either assume a) the universe isn't random, something guided it or b) there are infinite universes, and we're only aware of this one because it's the only one we can exist in.
Neither of these two are scientifically testable. So why are you assuming the one that also fits with other observations must be false?
It doesn't fit any better with other observations.
Let me mention my biggest problem with the idea of god. I'm not really bothered too much by the idea of god. If you want to be want to be a deist, go ahead. What really bothers me is people's reaction to the idea of god. For one, they'll use it to justify just about whatever they want. My big problem with the idea of god though is that it promotes ignorance. The standard reaction to things that aren't understood becomes
I don't understand that. God must have done it.
instead of being
I don't understand that. Hmm... I wonder if I can figure it out.
Before you claim that this isn't true, think about how many times the idea of god/gods have been used this way. Lightning, tides, even the sun moving across the sky used to be described as the actions of the gods. Heck, you even do it all over the place in your post. If some people didn't break away from this kind of thinking, we'd still be in the dark ages.
-
For example: fine tuned universe is one you provided on this thread and can be dismissed in one sentence. Life can develop in different ways too their environment (assuming that the universe would allow for genetics or something similar).
An explanation being short is not the same as an explanation being accurate.
The entire point of the fine-tuned universe argument is that it would not allow for any complex interactions, including genetics or anything similar.
Let's look at an example where the force of gravity was stronger than it is currently:
What would happen is the entirety of the universe would collapse in on itself, forming a singularity. That means that all the matter in the universe would occupy a single point.
You can't have complex chemical interactions necessary to form anything resembling a genetic code under those circumstances. Heck, you can't have any chemical reactions at all.
This is gonna be a fun discussion. First of all you don't state how much stronger, not to mention the fact that you're only assuming the same laws would exist. This is purely hypothetical bullcrap. How do you know that gravity would even exist in other universes? How do you know that it would allow for black holes? Or that in this alternate universe there are mechanisms that prevent it from allowing all the matter (if matter even existed in this hypothetical universe) to remain in the same place? In hypothetical scenarios you can't make any assertions about would could and couldn't be, and that's exactly what you're doing
And in a counter question: since you think that because it's so unlikely that life would arise naturally then why would there be so much empty space in space if a god did it? And why would he allow stars to die killing whatever life existed on the planets around it?
Firstly, it isn't unlikely that a randomly generated universe could support life. It's impossible.
Why would God be averse to empty space? It's not as if an omnipotent being needs to be concerned with efficiency of space usage.
As to stars dying, so far we only have a sample size of one planet with life on it, and we haven't been wiped out yet. On a more serious note though, dying is as natural a part of the universe as being born. One of the major teachings of most religions is that death is not the end, but merely a transition from one state to another. Therefore an omnipotent deity would not particularly dread death either.
Please demonstrate that it is impossible for a randomly generated universe to be able to support life. It is impossible to do so because you can't gather any data on hypothetical universes
Also how can you say that there is an infinite possible range of values for gravity (since that was the only variable you chose) when we only have a variable of one (which is a different one lined refutation of the fine tuning argument).
If you assume a limited range of possible values then you need an explanation as to why only certain values are possible.
Funny thing actually, you haven't provided an explanation as to why the same laws that exist in our universe would also exist in another universe, yet you need an explanation for this. And by the way, I never said that there is a limited range of values but that it's impossible to know
Simply put, even if we had a theory of everything which could accurately predict every single event in the universe, explaining everything in our lives with equations, you still can't explain where those equations came from.
Yes I can, the equations came from humans who were trying to find something that accurately reflects our universe. If you're trying to throw in a quick kalam cosmological argument then just say so.
I used gravity as an example, merely because it's easy to explain (you try writing a discussion of the strong nuclear force the average person can follow) and because gravity by itself is enough. If I can demonstrate that the value of one universal constant shows the universe couldn't have been put together randomly, then there's no point in repeating myself for the other constants.
The concept can, in fact, go far beyond even just the values of various constants. Why should F=ma? Or why are matter and energy conserved?
First of all, that is impossible to demonstrate without any data. Second of all, how do you know that constant is likely to exist in other universes. And finally, the reason why F=ma and E=MC squared is because that's how the laws just are. This is exactly like asking why is it that my computer is an exact shade of black.
Basically any universe created by random values being selected for constants, and equations being built randomly would invariably end up being completely uniform. You would not end up with complex interactions and variability of substance that could give birth to something that could be described as "life". The chances of anything else are infinitely small (i.e. zero).
The only way around it is to either assume a) the universe isn't random, something guided it or b) there are infinite universes, and we're only aware of this one because it's the only one we can exist in.
Neither of these two are scientifically testable. So why are you assuming the one that also fits with other observations must be false?
Wait, what? completely uniform? Where did that come from? Can you prove it?
And finally, for the last time. You can't possibly know that.
No, neither of those options are appealing. How about this one. We simply don't know whether it was guided random or anything like that. Also I'd like to point out the fact that since things evolve to their environment (you accept evolution, right?) of course the universe will seem fine tuned for them
-
well lemme add to what youve said with something not brought up.every claim religion has made and prediction they made has been wrong and all evidence ALL 100% of the last 2000 years favors the fact that there is no biblical god.for example the sun travels around the earth.the earth is flat. disease is caused by sin.surgery is sin.aids is gay punishment (yet lesbians are the lowest risk group).god is prolife (though has no problem killing babies to satisfy his blood lust).the earth is 6000 years old.and when their backs are against the wall their reasoning is nothing short of hilarious (dinosaur bones is gods way of testing our faith is my favorite). religion is now so irrelevent and silly that the ONLY claim they have left is apromise they cannot even prove real ,and that is life after death.thats the only lure they got left and they cant even be sure about it.church numbers are dwindling checka ny countries census over the last twenty years and the smarter we get a s a species the more distant god will be.though im sure that in 2000 years from now there will still be some people waiting for christ to appear from the clouds ina superman uniform to save us all.....
-
Jumping back in the discussion after just skimming it and being mia for a couple months...
First off. Id like to bring this saying to the table.
The Lack of Evidence, is not Evidence to the Contrary (I DARE someone to challenge me on that)
Secondly. Atheists fall into a fun little circle. Saying "Science hasnt discovered it yet" or "We just dont have the knowledge at this time" or anything of the like is no different than saying "God did it". Saying we don't have the knowledge for it assumes something is scientifically possible where as saying God did it says that God did it. Both are assuming something and neither has any facts whatsoever to back it up.
Quotes by Theloconate
This is gonna be a fun discussion. First of all you don't state how much stronger, not to mention the fact that you're only assuming the same laws would exist. This is purely hypothetical bullcrap. How do you know that gravity would even exist in other universes? How do you know that it would allow for black holes? Or that in this alternate universe there are mechanisms that prevent it from allowing all the matter (if matter even existed in this hypothetical universe) to remain in the same place? In hypothetical scenarios you can't make any assertions about would could and couldn't be, and that's exactly what you're doing
Yes, and how do YOU know that God doesnt exist? Give me your logic for the laws of physics to be different in another universe just because its another universe. You are speaking blindly in circles trying to humiliate when in reality the only one you are humiliating is yourself. That has to be the most desperate attempt at a cop out I have seen in a long time.
First of all, that is impossible to demonstrate without any data. Second of all, how do you know that constant is likely to exist in other universes. And finally, the reason why F=ma and E=MC squared is because that's how the laws just are. This is exactly like asking why is it that my computer is an exact shade of black.
You seem to completely miss his point... You are showing that time and time again. His point was why does F=ma and not F=mC squared. This about sums up half of your responses as well. You completely missed his point. however, to further prove that....
Yes I can, the equations came from humans who were trying to find something that accurately reflects our universe. If you're trying to throw in a quick kalam cosmological argument then just say so
REALLY! HUMANS MADE GRAVITY! WOW! I just thought we discovered the theory to it. But since he wasnt asking who discovered the equation, but instead why the equation exists in that manner, and how it came to be, and I assume you were answering his question, WOW! MY ANCESTORS MADE GRAVITY!
Quotes from QuantumT
You're supposing this based on our current, limited understanding of the universe.
See my second point.
On that note, why would an omnipotent god give a crap about a bunch of carbon based life forms?
Because he loves us. Its one of the many wonders of God. Why does he love us? Ask me that, and I will have no answer for you, because we do not deserve his love.
Perhaps we'll figure out an explanation as science advances.
... yeah... that explains it... notWhy do they have to come from somewhere?
The forces such as F=ma are the effect. But all effects require a cause. What is the cause? If we simply conclude that certain things require causes, and others the effect alone is enough, then what kind of science would that be? Why even find out the equation for gravity? Why not just have the effect that being in the sky causes us to fall and be happy with it? Science is as much a search for cause as religion is. Only, religion is a search for spiritual cause and science is a search for physical cause.
Let me mention my biggest problem with the idea of god. I'm not really bothered too much by the idea of god. If you want to be want to be a deist, go ahead. What really bothers me is people's reaction to the idea of god. For one, they'll use it to justify just about whatever they want. My big problem with the idea of god though is that it promotes ignorance.
And saying that a god doesnt exist is just as much a step of ignorance as well. Completely depending on something and saying that something doesnt exist are 2 opposite sides of the spectrum. A Christians viewpoint should be that God created order, as it is very clear in his word that he did.
Do you think it would be possible to time travel? What about move things with your mind? What about predict the future? What if I said that science will figure it out soon? Then what would you think? Youd think I was crazy huh? Because certain things are just impossible. Science cant do all things believe it or not. It can explain many many things, however, it can not do all things, and no amount of science will change that.
-
Jumping back in the discussion after just skimming it and being mia for a couple months...
First off. Id like to bring this saying to the table.
The Lack of Evidence, is not Evidence to the Contrary (I DARE someone to challenge me on that)
But when you don't have evidence to support something being true, you shouldn't suppose that it is anyway. See Russell's Teapot and the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
Secondly. Atheists fall into a fun little circle. Saying "Science hasnt discovered it yet" or "We just dont have the knowledge at this time" or anything of the like is no different than saying "God did it". Saying we don't have the knowledge for it assumes something is scientifically possible where as saying God did it says that God did it. Both are assuming something and neither has any facts whatsoever to back it up.
This is basically science just claiming ignorance, which is the correct course of action when you don't know something, not the invention of unsupportable ideas.
Yes, and how do YOU know that God doesnt exist? Give me your logic for the laws of physics to be different in another universe just because its another universe. You are speaking blindly in circles trying to humiliate when in reality the only one you are humiliating is yourself. That has to be the most desperate attempt at a cop out I have seen in a long time.
You haven't proven god to exist, so there is no reason to suppose that he does. It's the same logic that you apply to leprechauns, unicorns, and the loch ness monster. You assume that they don't exist because no one has provided any evidence that they do.
You seem to completely miss his point... You are showing that time and time again. His point was why does F=ma and not F=mC squared. This about sums up half of your responses as well. You completely missed his point. however, to further prove that....
Why does there have to be a reason? Why can't it just be?
Why do they have to come from somewhere?
The forces such as F=ma are the effect. But all effects require a cause. What is the cause? If we simply conclude that certain things require causes, and others the effect alone is enough, then what kind of science would that be? Why even find out the equation for gravity? Why not just have the effect that being in the sky causes us to fall and be happy with it? Science is as much a search for cause as religion is. Only, religion is a search for spiritual cause and science is a search for physical cause.
Just call the cause the universe. Otherwise you get into an infinite regression. You say god caused it, I respond with what caused god? And what caused what caused god?
Basically, making the supposition that god is the cause just further complicates the matter, because anything capable of creating the universe will be harder to explain than the universe itself.
And saying that a god doesnt exist is just as much a step of ignorance as well. Completely depending on something and saying that something doesnt exist are 2 opposite sides of the spectrum. A Christians viewpoint should be that God created order, as it is very clear in his word that he did.
It's exactly the same step of ignorance you make in dismissing leprechauns and unicorns. At least I apply it to everything. I'm reminded of a quote:
When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
– Stephen Roberts.
Do you think it would be possible to time travel? What about move things with your mind? What about predict the future? What if I said that science will figure it out soon? Then what would you think? Youd think I was crazy huh? Because certain things are just impossible. Science cant do all things believe it or not. It can explain many many things, however, it can not do all things, and no amount of science will change that.
You are correct. Science can't do things like violate causality. It is based in reality, and therefore doesn't make nonsensical claims about things outside reality.
Also, even if we were to allow god to be the source of the universe and all of it's laws, that only gets you as far as deism. Where does all of the other stuff come from?
TL;DR
You don't suppose that things exist without proof that they do. Your (presumed) dismissal of leprechauns and unicorns shows you think this as much as I do.
Calling god the source of something like the physical laws or the universe just leads to an infinite regression that isn't helpful in the slightest.
-
And 1000 years ago walking on the moon would be just as unrealistic. Or Tv. Or countless other inventions. What counts one thing out as not being scientifically, possible, while something else is? Have you seen the newest GI Joe Movie? What about nano bots that could eat metal? An invisibility suit that takes pictures of whats behind you and puts it in front? An accelerator suit? Do you consider any of those ideas a plausible idea?
Where do you draw the line?
You say god caused it, I respond with what caused god? And what caused what caused god?
God is considered to be there from the beginning. He is ever present. He is the beginning. There doesnt need to be a cause for him.
You haven't proven god to exist, so there is no reason to suppose that he does. It's the same logic that you apply to leprechauns, unicorns, and the loch ness monster. You assume that they don't exist because no one has provided any evidence that they do.
And what would you consider enough "proof" for him to exist.
Have you ever heard of the "Footprints" poem? I had a time, a very dark time in my life that I was walking down the street, my parents in the behind me, and I felt alone. However, I heard footprints right by me plain as day. Do you consider this proof?
I went to a doctors and was told if I didnt have physical therapy then I would have chronic joint pain in my knee the rest of my life. The very next week almost, I went to church (as I do every Sunday) and we had a guest speaker. He preached on healing and how it still happens to day, if you just trust God. I am not one to pray for myself, not for physical things at least, however, right there, i trusted God and prayed for my leg, didnt go up or anything, didnt have the preacher pray for me, just stayed where I was and prayed about my leg. That was over 2 years ago. 2 years later, havent had any sort of physical therapy, and havent had any pain since then. Is that considered proof?'
I had a friend that was struggling with her life, and had a verse she had never seen come to her, James 4:7 come to her in a dream.. first the word James showed up, then the number 4, then 7. That verse was exactly what she needed. A friend just died, and she kept blaming herself. Thought she could have done something to stop it. Why did that verse hit home? Because its talking about submitting to God. Remembering things arent in your control. Is that proof?
Do you require God to come down and reveal himself to you? I have given evidence of different things, although I have no proof of their origin. My conclusion from those is God. What is the line between coincidence and providence?
-
The next time I see an amputee I'll tell them they aren't praying hard enough.
-
And 1000 years ago walking on the moon would be just as unrealistic. Or Tv. Or countless other inventions. What counts one thing out as not being scientifically, possible, while something else is? Have you seen the newest GI Joe Movie? What about nano bots that could eat metal? An invisibility suit that takes pictures of whats behind you and puts it in front? An accelerator suit? Do you consider any of those ideas a plausible idea?
Where do you draw the line?
Generally things that violate causality, ie allow effects to proceed their causes, are a pretty good place to draw the line.
You say god caused it, I respond with what caused god? And what caused what caused god?
God is considered to be there from the beginning. He is ever present. He is the beginning. There doesnt need to be a cause for him.
That's a huge cop out. You can't claim that cause and effect are important then turn around and define god such that cause and effect don't apply.
You haven't proven god to exist, so there is no reason to suppose that he does. It's the same logic that you apply to leprechauns, unicorns, and the loch ness monster. You assume that they don't exist because no one has provided any evidence that they do.
And what would you consider enough "proof" for him to exist.
Have you ever heard of the "Footprints" poem? I had a time, a very dark time in my life that I was walking down the street, my parents in the behind me, and I felt alone. However, I heard footprints right by me plain as day. Do you consider this proof?
It's a metaphorical poem, so not really.
I went to a doctors and was told if I didnt have physical therapy then I would have chronic joint pain in my knee the rest of my life. The very next week almost, I went to church (as I do every Sunday) and we had a guest speaker. He preached on healing and how it still happens to day, if you just trust God. I am not one to pray for myself, not for physical things at least, however, right there, i trusted God and prayed for my leg, didnt go up or anything, didnt have the preacher pray for me, just stayed where I was and prayed about my leg. That was over 2 years ago. 2 years later, havent had any sort of physical therapy, and havent had any pain since then. Is that considered proof?'
Nope. That's psychosomatics combined with coincidence. One example doesn't prove anything.
Whenever studies are performed that examine faith healing, the results are mixed at best. Generally whenever anyone does manage to get a positive result, their results aren't repeatable. Here (http://healthlibrary.epnet.com/GetContent.aspx?token=a4c1f00b-d245-44f2-a90e-20b047f84a6a&chunkiid=120538) is one of the largest studies ever performed on the subject of faith healing. The result? The people who were prayed for and knew it actually did worse than the other 2 groups. This is probably due to some form of performance anxiety. Point is, prayer wasn't helpful.
I had a friend that was struggling with her life, and had a verse she had never seen come to her, James 4:7 come to her in a dream.. first the word James showed up, then the number 4, then 7. That verse was exactly what she needed. A friend just died, and she kept blaming herself. Thought she could have done something to stop it. Why did that verse hit home? Because its talking about submitting to God. Remembering things arent in your control. Is that proof?
The subjective feelings of a random person don't count as proof in any sense of the word. Basically all that proves is that humans like having someone to blame.
Do you require God to come down and reveal himself to you? I have given evidence of different things, although I have no proof of their origin. My conclusion from those is God. What is the line between coincidence and providence?
For it to count as evidence, it has to be objective and repeatable, not subjective and anecdotal.
The next time I see an amputee I'll tell them they aren't praying hard enough.
Haven't you heard? God hates amputees.
-
That's a huge cop out. You can't claim that cause and effect are important then turn around and define god such that cause and effect don't apply.
No, you see God IS considered the first cause. Its not a cop-out. I have the first cause defined in my mind. A first cause is a requirement.
It's a metaphorical poem, so not really.
The poem is metaphorical, the situation that I described is a first hand experience.
Nope. That's psychosomatics combined with coincidence. One example doesn't prove anything.
Id believe psychosomatics if the pain came back. It being the cause for 2 straight years? That not so much.
"Coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous." Albert Einstein
The subjective feelings of a random person don't count as proof in any sense of the word. Basically all that proves is that humans like having someone to blame.
You apparently missed the point. The point was that a verse that she never saw before came to her in a dream on the exact situation that she was struggling with.
For it to count as evidence, it has to be objective and repeatable, not subjective and anecdotal.
And so the big bang is proven to be a big dud by your own testimony. And the origin of life, and many other "theories".
Haven't you heard? God hates amputees.
Do you consider an ear an extremity?
Also another example. I have a friend who was bron without he ability to smell (and therefor taste except for bitterness or sweetness) and has been just randomly gained his sense of smell back. How many coincidences do you need for you to say that maybe there is something to this?
For it to count as evidence, it has to be objective and repeatable, not subjective and anecdotal.
And once again, what would you consider evidence? Give me an example, not a blanket statement.
For fun (since I have known about the whywontgodhealamputees website for several years now....) The most interesting part of this website is that it shows the outright refusal to believe in God. He lists many miracles, but then since God isnt doing 1 certain thing for them, he completely ignores the miracles and never disproves them. All he says is that God doesnt do enough, so why believe in him.
From a post I made years ago when I found that site....
1) Ignorance
2)God Complex
1)Ignorace- How So?
I'll mark several things that he hits on.
The first thing he points out is this.
Steve's Miracle
Even when a prayer doe[/url]s seem to work, it is often shrouded in mystery. For example, in the May, 2004 issue of Guideposts magazine there is a fascinating story about a huge wildfire that swept through San Diego, California. Steve Homel lived in a subdivision engulfed by that fire. Steve prayed and God answered Steve's prayer, so Steve's story offers a glimpse into the way that God works in our world.
Steve saw the fire approaching and it was terrifying -- "an eighty-foot wall of flames rolling down the ridge that overlooks our street." He and his wife evacuated to the home of Steve's grown daughter about 15 miles away. There, as he watched the news on TV, Steve actually saw the flames reaching his neighborhood.
What is the appropriate thing for a person to do in such a situation? As with Neva Rogers, the answer is prayer. Steve, however, decided to take an innovative approach. According to the article: "Suddenly Steve grabbed a piece of paper. 'God bless this house and the firemen who protect it,' he scrawled." Steve then faxed that sheet of paper to the fax machine in his home.
Days later, Steve and his neighbors were allowed to return to their subdivision. What Steve found when he arrived was absolutely amazing. Despite the raging inferno, Steve's house stood completely unscathed. Even the trees in the yard were protected. It was as though there had never been a fire near the neighborhood.
They found Steve's prayer in the tray of his fax machine. The fax machine had received the message, and obviously God did too.
Since Steve prayed and his house survived, believers know what happened. Having heard Steve's prayer, God reached down from heaven into our world and worked a miracle. When God acts on our earth so obviously like this, it is a source of hope, a testimony to God's grace and a shining example of the power of prayer. This story about God's blessings gets written up in magazines and sent to millions of believers: God saved Steve's house!
Immediately following he points this out.
The Mystery in San Diego
Steve's story certainly sounds miraculous. But if we probe into this situation just below the surface, we run into another paradox not unlike Neva Rogers'.
The problem is simple: Every other house on Steve's Street burned to the ground in the fire. According to the article, "The only things standing were a few brick chimneys. The rest had been reduced to ash." The 39 other houses on Steve's street were completely and utterly destroyed.
If God reached down to bless Steve by saving his house, did he not choose to curse Steve's neighbors by letting their homes burn to the ground? Why would a loving, all-powerful God save only one house when it would have been just as easy for him to save all 40? ......
He continues on with what he is talking about, but the point is immeadiatly bought up right there.
He completely ignores the fact that God saved that house, and says that he can not be real (or at least not the God of Christians)because of him suposedly "cursing" the remaining 39 houses. He is completely ignoring the fact that God saved the one person. Its not good enough for him. GOD STILL SAVED SOMEONE, but that one person wasnt good enough and although he cant explain how that one person survived otherwise, he claims it couldnt have been God because the others died.
My second example of ignorance is shown near the end, but Im not going to cut and paste this section.
He later on alks about creation, and even mentions irreducibl complexity, but then mentions how God could not have created us because of the simple fact that theres all these diseases that we are succeptable to. If we were created by an intelligent designer, then we wouldt be so mune to diseases and wouldnt die so easily.
The Big Problem
The God Complex- This person has a huge god complex. What do I mean by this? I mean he thinks he knows exactly how everthing should be done, and God knows absolutely nothing. The magority of the things he mentions is all things that he is either ignorant of, or he doesnt understand and thinks it should be done differently. He thinks God should have saved all of those people, but God Didnt, Why? I dont know. Guss what though. God does. You know why I think that? I think its because That one person has a testimony that he can hold fast on an witness to thousands of people for. bt thats just my Guess, I dont claim to Know gods thoughts.
-
That's a huge cop out. You can't claim that cause and effect are important then turn around and define god such that cause and effect don't apply.
No, you see God IS considered the first cause. Its not a cop-out. I have the first cause defined in my mind. A first cause is a requirement.
You basically just said it yourself. You have god defined as first cause in your mind. Even if a first cause is required, then why can't the universe be considered first cause? Supposing that it's god just leads right back to the infinite regression problem.
The poem is metaphorical, the situation that I described is a first hand experience.
The human mind is fallible. It has a tendency to receive what it's looking for.
Nope. That's psychosomatics combined with coincidence. One example doesn't prove anything.
Id believe psychosomatics if the pain came back. It being the cause for 2 straight years? That not so much.
The placebo effect is very real. And even if it's not the placebo effect, one example doesn't make a case because for every example of it working, there could be hundreds or even thousands for which it doesn't work at all. You don't get to define the random chances as successful prayers and write off the ridiculous number of failures.
"Coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous." Albert Einstein
Einstein was more of an agnostic and a pantheist than a theist, just fyi.
You apparently missed the point. The point was that a verse that she never saw before came to her in a dream on the exact situation that she was struggling with.
Prove that she had never seen it before, never heard it in church, nothing.
For it to count as evidence, it has to be objective and repeatable, not subjective and anecdotal.
And so the big bang is proven to be a big dud by your own testimony. And the origin of life, and many other "theories".
Nope. Anyone else is capable of making the exact same observations and coming to the same conclusion.
Haven't you heard? God hates amputees.
Do you consider an ear an extremity?
Also another example. I have a friend who was bron without he ability to smell (and therefor taste except for bitterness or sweetness) and has been just randomly gained his sense of smell back. How many coincidences do you need for you to say that maybe there is something to this?
Prove that this is somehow connected to prayer. Show that it's more likely to occur for people who pray than for people who don't, in a way that separates it from the placebo effect.
For it to count as evidence, it has to be objective and repeatable, not subjective and anecdotal.
And once again, what would you consider evidence? Give me an example, not a blanket statement.
For fun (since I have known about the whywontgodhealamputees website for several years now....) The most interesting part of this website is that it shows the outright refusal to believe in God. He lists many miracles, but then since God isnt doing 1 certain thing for them, he completely ignores the miracles and never disproves them. All he says is that God doesnt do enough, so why believe in him.
From a post I made years ago when I found that site....
Steve's Miracle
Even when a prayer doe[/url]s seem to work, it is often shrouded in mystery. For example, in the May, 2004 issue of Guideposts magazine there is a fascinating story about a huge wildfire that swept through San Diego, California. Steve Homel lived in a subdivision engulfed by that fire. Steve prayed and God answered Steve's prayer, so Steve's story offers a glimpse into the way that God works in our world.
Steve saw the fire approaching and it was terrifying -- "an eighty-foot wall of flames rolling down the ridge that overlooks our street." He and his wife evacuated to the home of Steve's grown daughter about 15 miles away. There, as he watched the news on TV, Steve actually saw the flames reaching his neighborhood.
What is the appropriate thing for a person to do in such a situation? As with Neva Rogers, the answer is prayer. Steve, however, decided to take an innovative approach. According to the article: "Suddenly Steve grabbed a piece of paper. 'God bless this house and the firemen who protect it,' he scrawled." Steve then faxed that sheet of paper to the fax machine in his home.
Days later, Steve and his neighbors were allowed to return to their subdivision. What Steve found when he arrived was absolutely amazing. Despite the raging inferno, Steve's house stood completely unscathed. Even the trees in the yard were protected. It was as though there had never been a fire near the neighborhood.
They found Steve's prayer in the tray of his fax machine. The fax machine had received the message, and obviously God did too.
Since Steve prayed and his house survived, believers know what happened. Having heard Steve's prayer, God reached down from heaven into our world and worked a miracle. When God acts on our earth so obviously like this, it is a source of hope, a testimony to God's grace and a shining example of the power of prayer. This story about God's blessings gets written up in magazines and sent to millions of believers: God saved Steve's house! [/i]
Immediately following he points this out.
The Mystery in San Diego
Steve's story certainly sounds miraculous. But if we probe into this situation just below the surface, we run into another paradox not unlike Neva Rogers'.
The problem is simple: Every other house on Steve's Street burned to the ground in the fire. According to the article, "The only things standing were a few brick chimneys. The rest had been reduced to ash." The 39 other houses on Steve's street were completely and utterly destroyed.
If God reached down to bless Steve by saving his house, did he not choose to curse Steve's neighbors by letting their homes burn to the ground? Why would a loving, all-powerful God save only one house when it would have been just as easy for him to save all 40? ......
He continues on with what he is talking about, but the point is immeadiatly bought up right there.
He completely ignores the fact that God saved that house, and says that he can not be real (or at least not the God of Christians)because of him suposedly "cursing" the remaining 39 houses. He is completely ignoring the fact that God saved the one person. Its not good enough for him. GOD STILL SAVED SOMEONE, but that one person wasnt good enough and although he cant explain how that one person survived otherwise, he claims it couldnt have been God because the others died.
Luck. Pure and simple. His house was saved by pure luck.
Basically, the end all on prayer is this. Every time things like coincidence are removed from the equation, when the only explanation is that prayers are effective, prayers do nothing. I'll believe in prayer when it is shown to have any provable effect whatsoever.
And I don't like prayer because it encourages inactivity.
Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer.
-Anonymous
He later on alks about creation, and even mentions irreducibl complexity, but then mentions how God could not have created us because of the simple fact that theres all these diseases that we are succeptable to. If we were created by an intelligent designer, then we wouldt be so mune to diseases and wouldnt die so easily.
The Big Problem
The God Complex- This person has a huge god complex. What do I mean by this? I mean he thinks he knows exactly how everthing should be done, and God knows absolutely nothing. The magority of the things he mentions is all things that he is either ignorant of, or he doesnt understand and thinks it should be done differently. He thinks God should have saved all of those people, but God Didnt, Why? I dont know. Guss what though. God does. You know why I think that? I think its because That one person has a testimony that he can hold fast on an witness to thousands of people for. bt thats just my Guess, I dont claim to Know gods thoughts.
It's not like his arguments are his alone. They're based on the idea that if god does exist, he's kind of a jerk because he intentionally set it up for us to suffer.
Ever notice how incredibly inconsistent the idea that god knows best and prayer are? Either he knows what's best, and prayer is pointless, or he doesn't, and maybe prayer is worthwhile (though statistically, it's worthless).
-
You basically just said it yourself. You have god defined as first cause in your mind. Even if a first cause is required, then why can't the universe be considered first cause? Supposing that it's god just leads right back to the infinite regression problem.
Thats no problem if you want to take that approach. So you are saying that the universe always existed? I just want tto make sure Im understanding what you are saying.
The placebo effect is very real. And even if it's not the placebo effect, one example doesn't make a case because for every example of it working, there could be hundreds or even thousands for which it doesn't work at all. You don't get to define the random chances as successful prayers and write off the ridiculous number of failures.
And so 1/1 is a ridiculous amount of failures? i dont make a habit of praying for myself unless its for strength. And I dont make a habit of ignoring things and just saying God will fix it. Perhaps if I prayed countless other prayers for myself, then i would agree with your stance, however, since that was the first, and last, I have a tendency to doubt.
Einstein was more of an agnostic and a pantheist than a theist, just fyi.
And that changes the fact that he said it? Just making sure ;)
Prove that she had never seen it before, never heard it in church, nothing.
And if I did, would that change your mind?
Prove that this is somehow connected to prayer. Show that it's more likely to occur for people who pray than for people who don't, in a way that separates it from the placebo effect.
Very well, I will get the persons personal testimony, he is a good friend of mine. And man, if thats the placebo effect, i wonder if I can fly if I will it enough.
Luck. Pure and simple. His house was saved by pure luck.
and what about the many other examples he gives on his site. The easiest place to look for miracles is an atheist website. They will list them off for you and then say how God should have done more. But it doesnt change the fact that they are miracles.
Ever notice how incredibly inconsistent the idea that god knows best and prayer are? Either he knows what's best, and prayer is pointless, or he doesn't, and maybe prayer is worthwhile (though statistically, it's worthless).
Ever notice how people that actually know the bible seem to think your arguments are pointless? Is it because we were brainwashed? Or maybe because we actually know what we are talking about. Goes back to ratcharmers "It sounds ridiculous" argument.
Dont have time to post more, will when i get back from work in 6 hours and will continue.
ps do you consider an ear an extremity. Still waiting for an answer. And waiting for an answer on which of these you think it possible and which arent.
Have you seen the newest GI Joe Movie? What about nano bots that could eat metal? An invisibility suit that takes pictures of whats behind you and puts it in front? An accelerator suit? Do you consider any of those ideas a plausible idea
?
-
Thats no problem if you want to take that approach. So you are saying that the universe always existed? I just want tto make sure Im understanding what you are saying.
I'm saying that if you require the universe to have a cause, then I'm going to say that the cause also requires a cause, and that cause also requires a cause, etc. Once you decide that the universe by itself isn't good enough, there's no reason to stop at just one step back.
And so 1/1 is a ridiculous amount of failures? i dont make a habit of praying for myself unless its for strength. And I dont make a habit of ignoring things and just saying God will fix it. Perhaps if I prayed countless other prayers for myself, then i would agree with your stance, however, since that was the first, and last, I have a tendency to doubt.
You still haven't separated it from the placebo effect, and even if you had, coincidences happen. If you want to prove that prayer is effective, you'll have to do it with statistics, not anecdotes.
And that changes the fact that he said it? Just making sure ;)
I'm just tired of Einstein being misquoted as some sort of huge christian. If it's just the words themselves that you wanted, then fine.
Prove that she had never seen it before, never heard it in church, nothing.
And if I did, would that change your mind?
It would, but to be fair, it will be basically impossible for you to prove it in this case, because the number of possible ways she could have heard it are enormous.
Very well, I will get the persons personal testimony, he is a good friend of mine. And man, if thats the placebo effect, i wonder if I can fly if I will it enough.
Like I said before, prove it with statistics, not anecdotes.
and what about the many other examples he gives on his site. The easiest place to look for miracles is an atheist website. They will list them off for you and then say how God should have done more. But it doesnt change the fact that they are miracles.
No they aren't. The few times when things do happen to line up with prayers are merely coincidence. If you were to catalog all the times that prayer failed alongside the few times it was successful, you would see the power of coincidence. Let me show this with an example.
There was a university campus (I can't remember which right now) where 1000 students were gathered and given coins. They were told to try and flip as many heads in a row as they could, when they flipped a tails they were out. At the beginning, the students just flipped the coins without much concern, but by the time the students that were still in had flipped 5-6 heads in a row the attitude had changed. They were focused intensely on the coin flip, they were sweating profusely, like they had some sort of power over the outcome, completely ignorant of the fact that every time they went through another toss, roughly half of them flipped tails and were out, exactly in line with the laws of probability. The ones that did better didn't actually have any innate ability that allowed them to flip coins, they were simply lucky.
The point is, that even when the chances for something to occur are low, they're still not zero. And the studies performed on prayer work out exactly the same way. Regardless of whether it's prayed for or not, when the sample size is large enough, praying or not praying has no effect.
Ever notice how people that actually know the bible seem to think your arguments are pointless? Is it because we were brainwashed? Or maybe because we actually know what we are talking about. Goes back to ratcharmers "It sounds ridiculous" argument.
It's not that it sounds ridiculous (though it does), it's that it's logically inconsistent. Either god knows best and he's going to do it without any input from me, or prayer has an effect and god isn't all knowing. The two ideas are mutually exclusive.
ps do you consider an ear an extremity. Still waiting for an answer. And waiting for an answer on which of these you think it possible and which arent.
I suppose, but let's make it an arm or a leg for purposes of this. After all, god should hear their prayers too right?
Have you seen the newest GI Joe Movie? What about nano bots that could eat metal? An invisibility suit that takes pictures of whats behind you and puts it in front? An accelerator suit? Do you consider any of those ideas a plausible idea
?
They might be possible in some form, I don't know. What I do know is that what's going to lead to them is a scientific approach, not a superstitious one.
-
I'm saying that if you require the universe to have a cause, then I'm going to say that the cause also requires a cause, and that cause also requires a cause, etc. Once you decide that the universe by itself isn't good enough, there's no reason to stop at just one step back.
So give me something in the world that does not have a cause. spontaneous generation of things isnt exactly scientific. Things require an initial cause.
I'm just tired of Einstein being misquoted as some sort of huge christian. If it's just the words themselves that you wanted, then fine.
This isnt the place for a conversation for einstiens beliefs. Some people swear up and down hes a christian, others say he is an atheist, it makes no difference to me.
No they aren't. The few times when things do happen to line up with prayers are merely coincidence. If you were to catalog all the times that prayer failed alongside the few times it was successful, you would see the power of coincidence. Let me show this with an example.
You seem to have missed what I was talking about.
What Im not talking about.
Other people.
What I am talking about, the 1 time I prayed for myself. I am saying that one time the prayer worked. Im going to get a little spiritual here but bear with me.
I am not sure of other peoples ideas of prayers, however, I do know what I believe. I believe in the power of the holy spirit. I do not pray for healing for anyone, including myself, unless I feel the holy spirit leading me to do so. I will tell you every single time I have prayed for something whether it be for physical, or emotional healing, it has happened. Why do I think prayer fails for many people? Because, they are praying to pray. I dont doubt that a large sum of prayers being answered are coincidences, as you like pointing out, you are bound to be right eventually. I could claim im telepathic by tellign every person I pass to drop their books. Im bound to be right eventually. You have to look at the reason you are praying. Is it because you are testing God? It wont be answered. Is it because you just feel like it? It wont be answered. Is it because you really want it to happen? It wont be answered. God answers prayers of the righteous. God will examine our heart.
I suppose, but let's make it an arm or a leg for purposes of this. After all, god should hear their prayers too right
So you do consider an ear an extremity, therefor one being cut off would be considered an amputation, and Jesus reattached an ear in the bible. Your response. The bible isnt fact. Im just pointing that out though. you are able to use the bible for why the bible doesnt exist, and I am doing the exact thing to show that it does in fact exist.
Also Do you really want to talk about having no evidence? The person on that site has no evidence for any of his "facts". He says that if you have someone pray over an amputee who honestly believes in God and has that persons best interest i mind, they will still not be healed. however, he doesnt actually try it. He just assumes it. I almost want to start a new topic just about that website as to not get to sidetracked from the topic.
And the studies performed on prayer work out exactly the same way. Regardless of whether it's prayed for or not, when the sample size is large enough, praying or not praying has no effect.
Show me the evidence.
It's not that it sounds ridiculous (though it does), it's that it's logically inconsistent. Either god knows best and he's going to do it without any input from me, or prayer has an effect and god isn't all knowing. The two ideas are mutually exclusive
This is what I wanted to post more on but ran out of time. They actually are not mutually exclusive. For my example, I will use my leg.
You are assuming that either
a)God was going to just heal my leg and it didnt matter If i prayed or not,
b)My leg was healed because I prayed, and God isnt all knowing due to that.
This is what I believe though
I do not believe my leg would have been healed if I didnt pray. Since I did pray, God rewarded my faith by healing my leg, however, If I didnt pray, nothing would have happened. God required me following his spirit and praying for my leg, and since I took that leap of faith I was rewarded. So you see, they are far from mutually exclusive.
Many peoples prayers are self righteous and have no concern for gods glory. So they arent answered. I find that people that earnestly seek God and pray without ceasing as commanded in the bible are the ones to have their prayers answered.
Also, one final reference to God healing amputees before I end this post.
Copied this from a website. I believe it's a thorough answer to the question
Why won't God heal amputees?
Question: "Why won't God heal amputees?"
Answer: Some use this question in an attempt to "disprove" the existence of God. In fact, there is a popular anti-Christian website dedicated to the “Why won’t God heal amputees?” argument: http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com (http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/). If God is all-powerful and if Jesus promised to do anything we ask (or so the reasoning goes), then why won’t God ever heal amputees when we pray for them? Why does God heal victims of cancer and diabetes, for example, yet He never causes an amputated limb to be regenerated? The fact that an amputee stays an amputee is "proof" to some that God does not exist, that prayer is useless, that so-called healings are coincidence, and that religion is a myth.
The above argument is usually presented in a thoughtful, well-reasoned way, with a liberal sprinkling of Scripture to make it seem all the more legitimate. However, it is an argument based on a wrong view of God and a misrepresentation of Scripture. The line of reasoning employed in the "why won’t God heal amputees" argument makes at least seven false assumptions:
Assumption 1: God has never healed an amputee. Who is to say that in the history of the world, God has never caused a limb to regenerate? To say, "I have no empirical evidence that limbs can regenerate; therefore, no amputee has ever been healed in the history of the world" is akin to saying "I have no empirical evidence that rabbits live in my yard; therefore, no rabbit has ever lived on this ground in the history of the world." It’s a conclusion that simply cannot be drawn. Besides, we have the historical record of Jesus healing lepers, some of whom we may assume had lost digits or facial features. In each case, the lepers were restored whole (Mark 1:40-42 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Mark%201.40-42); Luke 17:12-14 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Luke%2017.12-14)). Also, there is the case of the man with the shriveled hand (Matthew 12:9-13 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Matthew%2012.9-13)), and the restoration of Malchus's severed ear (Luke 22:50-51 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Luke%2022.50-51)), not to mention the fact that Jesus raised the dead (Matthew 11:5 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Matthew%2011.5); John 11), which would undeniably be even more difficult than healing an amputee.
Assumption 2: God’s goodness and love require Him to heal everyone. Illness, suffering, and pain are the result of our living in a cursed world—cursed because of our sin (Genesis 3:16-19 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Genesis%203.16-19); Romans 8:20-22 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Romans%208.20-22)). God’s goodness and love moved Him to provide a Savior to redeem us from the curse (1 John 4:9-10 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/1%20John%204.9-10)), but our ultimate redemption will not be realized until God has made a final end of sin in the world. Until that time, we are still subject to physical death.
If God’s love required Him to heal every disease and infirmity, then no one would ever die—because "love" would maintain everyone in perfect health. The biblical definition of love is "a sacrificial seeking what is best for the loved one." What is best for us is not always physical wholeness. Paul the apostle prayed to have his "thorn in the flesh" removed, but God said, "No" because He wanted Paul to understand he didn’t need to be physically whole to experience the sustaining grace of God. Through the experience, Paul grew in humility and in the understanding of God’s mercy and power (2 Corinthians 12:7-10 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/2%20Corinthians%2012.7-10)).
The testimony of Joni Eareckson Tada provides a modern example of what God can do through physical tragedy. As a teenager, Joni suffered a diving accident that left her a quadriplegic. In her book Joni, she relates how she visited faith healers many times and prayed desperately for the healing which never came. Finally, she accepted her condition as God’s will, and she writes, "The more I think about it, the more I’m convinced that God doesn’t want everyone well. He uses our problems for His glory and our good" (p. 190).
Assumption 3: God still performs miracles today just as He did in the past. In the thousands of years of history covered by the Bible, we find just four short periods in which miracles were widely performed (the period of the Exodus, the time of the prophets Elijah and Elisha, the ministry of Jesus, and the time of the apostles). While miracles occurred throughout the Bible, it was only during these four periods that miracles were "common."
The time of the apostles ended with the writing of Revelation and the death of John. That means that now, once again, miracles are rare. Any ministry which claims to be led by a new breed of apostle or claims to possess the ability to heal is deceiving people. "Faith healers" play upon emotion and use the power of suggestion to produce unverifiable "healings." This is not to say that God does not heal people today—we believe He does—but not in the numbers or in the way that some people claim.
We turn again to the story of Joni Eareckson Tada, who at one time sought the help of faith healers. On the subject of modern-day miracles, she says, "Man’s dealing with God in our day and culture is based on His Word rather than ‘signs and wonders’" (op cit., p. 190). His grace is sufficient, and His Word is sure.
Assumption 4: God is bound to say "yes" to any prayer offered in faith. Jesus said, "I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it" (John 14:12-14 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/John%2014.12-14)). Some have tried to interpret this passage as a carte blanche from Jesus promising His agreement to whatever we ask. But this is misreading Jesus’ intent. Notice, first, that Jesus is speaking to His apostles, and the promise is for them. After Jesus’ ascension, the apostles were given power to perform miracles as they spread the gospel (Acts 5:12 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Acts%205.12)). Second, Jesus twice uses the phrase "in My name." This indicates the basis for the apostles’ prayers, but it also implies that whatever they prayed for should be consonant with Jesus’ will. A selfish prayer, for example, or one motivated by greed, cannot be said to be prayed in Jesus’ name.
We pray in faith, but faith means that we trust God. We trust Him to do what is best and to know what is best. When we consider all the Bible’s teaching on prayer (not just the promise given to the apostles), we learn that God may exercise His power in response to our prayer, or He may surprise us with a different course of action. In His wisdom He always does what is best (Romans 8:28 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Romans%208.28)).
Assumption 5: God’s future healing (at the resurrection) cannot compensate for earthly suffering. The truth is, "our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us" (Romans 8:18 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Romans%208.18)). When a believer loses a limb, he has God’s promise of future wholeness, and faith is "being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see" (Hebrews 11:4 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Hebrews%2011.4)). Jesus said, "It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire" (Matthew 18:8 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Matthew%2018.8)). His words confirm the relative unimportance of our physical condition in this world, as compared to our eternal state. To enter life maimed (and then to be made whole) is infinitely better than to enter hell whole (to suffer for eternity).
Assumption 6: God’s plan is subject to man’s approval. One of the contentions of the "why won’t God heal amputees" argument is that God just isn’t "fair" to amputees. Yet, Scripture is clear that God is perfectly just (Psalm 11:7 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Psalm%2011.7); 2 Thessalonians 1:5-6 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/2%20Thessalonians%201.5-6)) and in His sovereignty answers to no one (Romans 9:20-21 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Romans%209.20-21)). A believer has faith in God’s goodness, even when circumstances make it difficult and reason seems to falter.
Assumption 7: God does not exist. This is the underlying assumption on which the whole "why won’t God heal amputees" argument is based. Those who champion the "why won’t God heal amputees" argument start with the assumption that God does not exist and then proceed to buttress their idea as best they can. For them, "religion is a myth" is a foregone conclusion, presented as a logical deduction but which is, in reality, foundational to the argument.
In one sense, the question of why God doesn’t heal amputees is a "gotcha" question, comparable to "Can God make a rock too big for Him to lift?" and is designed not to seek for truth but to discredit faith. In another sense, it can be a valid question with a biblical answer. That answer, in short, would be something like this: "God can heal amputees and will heal every one of them who trusts Christ as Savior. The healing will come, not as the result of our demanding it now, but in God’s own time, possibly in this life, but definitely in Heaven. Until that time, we walk by faith, trusting the God who redeems us in Christ and promises the resurrection of the body."
EDIT
Honestly thats the last of that site that I am going to reference regardless of if you continue talking about it or not though. The way I see it, all that site does is make Atheists grin in delight of finding more "proof" and Christians just sorta look and wonder "Are you really that ignorant?" Its an Atheist site for Atheists, and has no real ground to be a rebuttle of any belief. If you think its important enough to make a new topic for it, go for it. I will rain down many different amputee stories that you will write off as stories, and we will have fun going in circles. Answers in Genises puts it in a good way.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/01/30/feedback-god-heal-amputees
No, they never really answered the question. why? Because they werent looking for an answer. They were trying to be clever. All AiG did is show they werent being clever.
As for if prayer works or not, Im afraid I will have to take the same approach there as well. No matter what I show you, it will simply be marked off as either a placebo effect, or if its impossible to be marked off as that, then a coincidence. I could show many different healings, however, I do not feel like being told they are just stories or coincidences. It is a waste of both our times.
The bible talks of casting pearls to swine, and I feel that is all that is being done here.
-
I'm saying that if you require the universe to have a cause, then I'm going to say that the cause also requires a cause, and that cause also requires a cause, etc. Once you decide that the universe by itself isn't good enough, there's no reason to stop at just one step back.
So give me something in the world that does not have a cause. spontaneous generation of things isnt exactly scientific. Things require an initial cause.
Infinite regressions are useless. The viewpoint that I don't currently understand how the universe currently started is better than a pointless infinite regression though.
This isnt the place for a conversation for einstiens beliefs. Some people swear up and down hes a christian, others say he is an atheist, it makes no difference to me.
I figure Einstein claiming to be agnostic is probably a reasonable indicator of Einstein being agnostic.
What I am talking about, the 1 time I prayed for myself. I am saying that one time the prayer worked. Im going to get a little spiritual here but bear with me.
I am not sure of other peoples ideas of prayers, however, I do know what I believe. I believe in the power of the holy spirit. I do not pray for healing for anyone, including myself, unless I feel the holy spirit leading me to do so. I will tell you every single time I have prayed for something whether it be for physical, or emotional healing, it has happened. Why do I think prayer fails for many people? Because, they are praying to pray. I dont doubt that a large sum of prayers being answered are coincidences, as you like pointing out, you are bound to be right eventually. I could claim im telepathic by tellign every person I pass to drop their books. Im bound to be right eventually. You have to look at the reason you are praying. Is it because you are testing God? It wont be answered. Is it because you just feel like it? It wont be answered. Is it because you really want it to happen? It wont be answered. God answers prayers of the righteous. God will examine our heart.
One data point isn't enough to make any statistically valid conclusions.
So when will it be effective? When it's exactly what statistically would have happened anyway?
So you do consider an ear an extremity, therefor one being cut off would be considered an amputation, and Jesus reattached an ear in the bible. Your response. The bible isnt fact. Im just pointing that out though. you are able to use the bible for why the bible doesnt exist, and I am doing the exact thing to show that it does in fact exist.
The bible isn't fact and nothing it claims can be used as hard evidence of anything. It is provably wrong in many cases, and can't be taken as a reliable source.
Also Do you really want to talk about having no evidence? The person on that site has no evidence for any of his "facts". He says that if you have someone pray over an amputee who honestly believes in God and has that persons best interest i mind, they will still not be healed. however, he doesnt actually try it. He just assumes it. I almost want to start a new topic just about that website as to not get to sidetracked from the topic.
He doesn't do what you claim because he can't. He doesn't believe in god so it's impossible for him to do it. I encourage you to perform the experiment though. Get everyone in your church to pray for an amputee to spontaneously generate their limb, and see what happens.
And the studies performed on prayer work out exactly the same way. Regardless of whether it's prayed for or not, when the sample size is large enough, praying or not praying has no effect.
Show me the evidence.
Study on heart patients (http://www.ahjonline.com/article/S0002-8703%2805%2900649-6/abstract)
This is what I wanted to post more on but ran out of time. They actually are not mutually exclusive. For my example, I will use my leg.
You are assuming that either
a)God was going to just heal my leg and it didnt matter If i prayed or not,
b)My leg was healed because I prayed, and God isnt all knowing due to that.
This is what I believe though
I do not believe my leg would have been healed if I didnt pray. Since I did pray, God rewarded my faith by healing my leg, however, If I didnt pray, nothing would have happened. God required me following his spirit and praying for my leg, and since I took that leap of faith I was rewarded. So you see, they are far from mutually exclusive.
Many peoples prayers are self righteous and have no concern for gods glory. So they arent answered. I find that people that earnestly seek God and pray without ceasing as commanded in the bible are the ones to have their prayers answered.
So basically this end's up working out to
A) Your prayer is answered, and your faith is being rewarded.
B) Your prayer isn't answered, and your prayer must have been self-righteous and have no concern for god's glory.
It's setup that regardless of the result, you can't be wrong.
Also, one final reference to God healing amputees before I end this post.
Copied this from a website. I believe it's a thorough answer to the question
Why won't God heal amputees?
Question: "Why won't God heal amputees?"
Answer: Some use this question in an attempt to "disprove" the existence of God. In fact, there is a popular anti-Christian website dedicated to the “Why won’t God heal amputees?” argument: http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com (http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/). If God is all-powerful and if Jesus promised to do anything we ask (or so the reasoning goes), then why won’t God ever heal amputees when we pray for them? Why does God heal victims of cancer and diabetes, for example, yet He never causes an amputated limb to be regenerated? The fact that an amputee stays an amputee is "proof" to some that God does not exist, that prayer is useless, that so-called healings are coincidence, and that religion is a myth.
The above argument is usually presented in a thoughtful, well-reasoned way, with a liberal sprinkling of Scripture to make it seem all the more legitimate. However, it is an argument based on a wrong view of God and a misrepresentation of Scripture. The line of reasoning employed in the "why won’t God heal amputees" argument makes at least seven false assumptions:
Assumption 1: God has never healed an amputee. Who is to say that in the history of the world, God has never caused a limb to regenerate? To say, "I have no empirical evidence that limbs can regenerate; therefore, no amputee has ever been healed in the history of the world" is akin to saying "I have no empirical evidence that rabbits live in my yard; therefore, no rabbit has ever lived on this ground in the history of the world." It’s a conclusion that simply cannot be drawn. Besides, we have the historical record of Jesus healing lepers, some of whom we may assume had lost digits or facial features. In each case, the lepers were restored whole (Mark 1:40-42 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Mark%201.40-42); Luke 17:12-14 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Luke%2017.12-14)). Also, there is the case of the man with the shriveled hand (Matthew 12:9-13 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Matthew%2012.9-13)), and the restoration of Malchus's severed ear (Luke 22:50-51 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Luke%2022.50-51)), not to mention the fact that Jesus raised the dead (Matthew 11:5 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Matthew%2011.5); John 11), which would undeniably be even more difficult than healing an amputee.
Assumption 2: God’s goodness and love require Him to heal everyone. Illness, suffering, and pain are the result of our living in a cursed world—cursed because of our sin (Genesis 3:16-19 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Genesis%203.16-19); Romans 8:20-22 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Romans%208.20-22)). God’s goodness and love moved Him to provide a Savior to redeem us from the curse (1 John 4:9-10 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/1%20John%204.9-10)), but our ultimate redemption will not be realized until God has made a final end of sin in the world. Until that time, we are still subject to physical death.
If God’s love required Him to heal every disease and infirmity, then no one would ever die—because "love" would maintain everyone in perfect health. The biblical definition of love is "a sacrificial seeking what is best for the loved one." What is best for us is not always physical wholeness. Paul the apostle prayed to have his "thorn in the flesh" removed, but God said, "No" because He wanted Paul to understand he didn’t need to be physically whole to experience the sustaining grace of God. Through the experience, Paul grew in humility and in the understanding of God’s mercy and power (2 Corinthians 12:7-10 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/2%20Corinthians%2012.7-10)).
The testimony of Joni Eareckson Tada provides a modern example of what God can do through physical tragedy. As a teenager, Joni suffered a diving accident that left her a quadriplegic. In her book Joni, she relates how she visited faith healers many times and prayed desperately for the healing which never came. Finally, she accepted her condition as God’s will, and she writes, "The more I think about it, the more I’m convinced that God doesn’t want everyone well. He uses our problems for His glory and our good" (p. 190).
Assumption 3: God still performs miracles today just as He did in the past. In the thousands of years of history covered by the Bible, we find just four short periods in which miracles were widely performed (the period of the Exodus, the time of the prophets Elijah and Elisha, the ministry of Jesus, and the time of the apostles). While miracles occurred throughout the Bible, it was only during these four periods that miracles were "common."
The time of the apostles ended with the writing of Revelation and the death of John. That means that now, once again, miracles are rare. Any ministry which claims to be led by a new breed of apostle or claims to possess the ability to heal is deceiving people. "Faith healers" play upon emotion and use the power of suggestion to produce unverifiable "healings." This is not to say that God does not heal people today—we believe He does—but not in the numbers or in the way that some people claim.
We turn again to the story of Joni Eareckson Tada, who at one time sought the help of faith healers. On the subject of modern-day miracles, she says, "Man’s dealing with God in our day and culture is based on His Word rather than ‘signs and wonders’" (op cit., p. 190). His grace is sufficient, and His Word is sure.
Assumption 4: God is bound to say "yes" to any prayer offered in faith. Jesus said, "I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it" (John 14:12-14 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/John%2014.12-14)). Some have tried to interpret this passage as a carte blanche from Jesus promising His agreement to whatever we ask. But this is misreading Jesus’ intent. Notice, first, that Jesus is speaking to His apostles, and the promise is for them. After Jesus’ ascension, the apostles were given power to perform miracles as they spread the gospel (Acts 5:12 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Acts%205.12)). Second, Jesus twice uses the phrase "in My name." This indicates the basis for the apostles’ prayers, but it also implies that whatever they prayed for should be consonant with Jesus’ will. A selfish prayer, for example, or one motivated by greed, cannot be said to be prayed in Jesus’ name.
We pray in faith, but faith means that we trust God. We trust Him to do what is best and to know what is best. When we consider all the Bible’s teaching on prayer (not just the promise given to the apostles), we learn that God may exercise His power in response to our prayer, or He may surprise us with a different course of action. In His wisdom He always does what is best (Romans 8:28 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Romans%208.28)).
Assumption 5: God’s future healing (at the resurrection) cannot compensate for earthly suffering. The truth is, "our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us" (Romans 8:18 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Romans%208.18)). When a believer loses a limb, he has God’s promise of future wholeness, and faith is "being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see" (Hebrews 11:4 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Hebrews%2011.4)). Jesus said, "It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire" (Matthew 18:8 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Matthew%2018.8)). His words confirm the relative unimportance of our physical condition in this world, as compared to our eternal state. To enter life maimed (and then to be made whole) is infinitely better than to enter hell whole (to suffer for eternity).
Assumption 6: God’s plan is subject to man’s approval. One of the contentions of the "why won’t God heal amputees" argument is that God just isn’t "fair" to amputees. Yet, Scripture is clear that God is perfectly just (Psalm 11:7 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Psalm%2011.7); 2 Thessalonians 1:5-6 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/2%20Thessalonians%201.5-6)) and in His sovereignty answers to no one (Romans 9:20-21 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Romans%209.20-21)). A believer has faith in God’s goodness, even when circumstances make it difficult and reason seems to falter.
Assumption 7: God does not exist. This is the underlying assumption on which the whole "why won’t God heal amputees" argument is based. Those who champion the "why won’t God heal amputees" argument start with the assumption that God does not exist and then proceed to buttress their idea as best they can. For them, "religion is a myth" is a foregone conclusion, presented as a logical deduction but which is, in reality, foundational to the argument.
In one sense, the question of why God doesn’t heal amputees is a "gotcha" question, comparable to "Can God make a rock too big for Him to lift?" and is designed not to seek for truth but to discredit faith. In another sense, it can be a valid question with a biblical answer. That answer, in short, would be something like this: "God can heal amputees and will heal every one of them who trusts Christ as Savior. The healing will come, not as the result of our demanding it now, but in God’s own time, possibly in this life, but definitely in Heaven. Until that time, we walk by faith, trusting the God who redeems us in Christ and promises the resurrection of the body."
Assumption 1: The analogy is false. Rabbits tend to do things like live in the ground, so the supposition that rabbits live in my yard is reasonable. Limbs don't spontaneously regenerate, so the supposition that it hasn't happened is reasonable, just like the supposition that things have never "fallen up" etc.
Additionally, bible is fallible. It can't be taken to be a factual resource on anything.
Assumption 2: Yet it's claimed that he helps sometimes in the cases of other medical problems. Why never in amputees?
Also, the idea that "suffering is good for me" is ludicrous. It wouldn't fly for any person, and it won't fly for god.
Assumption 3: Seems like an odd coincidence that miracles stopped being performed as soon as the average person became intelligent enough to know the difference. In all the other periods that miracles were performed, the average person was completely illiterate, probably couldn't do any math beyond the most rudimentary arithmetic, and most likely never traveled more than 50 miles from the place they were born. How hard would it be to convince such a person they had seen a miracle?
Assumption 4: This is the catchall I mentioned above. Either god answers my prayer and my prayer was answered, or he doesn't because it "isn't his will." You can't be proven wrong.
Assumption 5: The receipt of future retribution for current payment sounds like something a con artist would do.
Assumption 6: You can't use the definition that god is just as justification that god is just. It's the worst circular argument I've ever seen.
Assumption 7: It's not taken as a given. If god exists, and if praying to him is effective, then some amputee should at some point regenerate a limb.
It's not really a gotcha question. God has clearly shown that it's possible for things to regenerate lost limbs, as it's something that salamanders and starfish can do, presumably without praying at all. Why can't the truly faithful ever do it? The answer will never come in this life, and no one has proved that the next one exists at all, so I'm not accepting payment in that one.
The other question though does show that the idea of omnipotence is logically impossible.
As for if prayer works or not, Im afraid I will have to take the same approach there as well. No matter what I show you, it will simply be marked off as either a placebo effect, or if its impossible to be marked off as that, then a coincidence. I could show many different healings, however, I do not feel like being told they are just stories or coincidences. It is a waste of both our times.
Claims of the placebo effect can be taken out when properly performed studies are done (just like they are for medicine). Claims of coincidence can be gotten rid of when the sample size is large enough to average out coincidences.
-
Censoring out everything that doesnt have to do with Eisensteins world view which has no point, and the 2 subjects I already mentioned I would stop referring to unless they are in a dedicated topic (Ill be honest and say I didnt even read it)... We are left with
Infinite regressions are useless. The viewpoint that I don't currently understand how the universe currently started is better than a pointless infinite regression though.
note the rest of this post, when I say beginning I mean the beginning of infinity/something being ever-present
Im not talking about infinite regression. We can assume that time in a metaphorical sense of "moments that pass" exists, and has always existed. So we have time represented by a dashed line (-----). now in order for there to be a first cause, soemthing had to have always existed. Otherwise spontaneous generation is a real thing. now a solid line (___) represents whatever existed with time in the beginning. There has to be something always there in the beginning. That would look like this.
---------------------
_____________
That solid line has to always either
A)Exist in its current form or
B)Exist in another form. (Perhaps it changed into something else due to its makeup that had always existed)
It would be quite a leap of faith to say the beginning was like this.
----------------------
______
With something suddenly appearing. There had to be something in the beginning. Infinite regression really has no realistic application because it would require the first example (Which would have time as a first cause which cant act on nothing and cause something)
-
It's infinite regression because you claim the universe needs a cause, and that cause is god. I just ask you what caused god? And what caused what caused god? And what caused what caused what caused god? A what caused what caused what caused what caused god?
It goes on forever. One step is a much more satisfactory number than two, because two has all the problems that one has, and it also has this infinite regression problem.
The other reason I don't like it is because it discourages further investigation into the matter. If we'd always just been willing to call whatever we didn't understand god, then we'd still be in the stone ages. It's only by admitting ignorance that progress is made.
What would it take to prove to you that there is no god? Then I'll at least know what I have to work with.
-
It's infinite regression because you claim the universe needs a cause, and that cause is god. I just ask you what caused god? And what caused what caused god? And what caused what caused what caused god? A what caused what caused what caused what caused god?
It goes on forever. One step is a much more satisfactory number than two, because two has all the problems that one has, and it also has this infinite regression problem.
The other reason I don't like it is because it discourages further investigation into the matter. If we'd always just been willing to call whatever we didn't understand god, then we'd still be in the stone ages. It's only by admitting ignorance that progress is made.
What would it take to prove to you that there is no god? Then I'll at least know what I have to work with.
You seem to still be missing my point. Either that or you just completely ignored my point. Im once again stating that I am NOT talking about infinite regression. God doesnt need a cause because he always was and always is and always will be. What I am asking you is what is it that "always was" from your point of view or at least what is the generally accepted scientific take on it?
-
You seem to still be missing my point. Either that or you just completely ignored my point. Im once again stating that I am NOT talking about infinite regression. God doesnt need a cause because he always was and always is and always will be. What I am asking you is what is it that "always was" from your point of view or at least what is the generally accepted scientific take on it?
The scientific viewpoint is that we don't know. Currently general relativity seems to go back to a singularity if we take it backwards in time. We can't currently take it back any further than that.
However, it is irresponsible to make up things to take the place of this ignorance. It's certainly possible that as science advances, we'll be able to better explain the big bang. I can postulate a variety of explanations for the big bang that don't involve god, but they're not any more scientific than god is.
-
Why do I always click these religion links when they're under recent topics? :-\
God doesnt need a cause because he always was and always is and always will be. What I am asking you is what is it that "always was" from your point of view or at least what is the generally accepted scientific take on it?
Anyway here's my view on this as well. Religions and science* could agree that there was something "in the beginning" that didn't require a cause. According to science it was an event (the Big Bang), whereas according to some of the religions (yours included, so let's stick to that) it was a life form (God).
(*Science doesn't exclude certain other possibilities... and all religions probably don't subscribe to this either.)
So why would we feel the Big Bang makes more sense as the absolute beginning? Note that the Universe, with all of its complexities, could have arisen from a set of simple rules where you begin with a matrix of random values... (See Conway's game of life for an example of complexity arising from simplicity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life ) Zillions and zillions of chemical compounds are made possible through combinations of a hundred or so atoms, that are all built with around five types of basic particles, which themselves may only be different vibrations on the same type of superstrings.
All that was required for the Universe to be the way it is a set of rules. Now one might look at the "God" concept and describe his/her/its thought patterns (= its existence) completely as a set of rules. Then we could say that God started the Universe. This is the concept of "scientific god" and yes, science doesn't mind.
However, the gods found in contemporary religious books don't fit that bill. They're too complex - and let me explain just what I mean by that. They're not too complex for it to be impossible for them to have emerged by chance, though it does make one think of a bunch of monkeys typing Shakespeare. And that's just it: if we're attributing the rules at the beginning of everything to random chance (Which we are - I'll get to that right away.) then it's simply much more likely that those rules would be very simple. The flying spaghetti monster is not impossible, we're just dismissing it along with the monkeys' careers as writers.
Why do we believe those rules would be the way they are due to random chance? Because it's the simplest explanation, as well as the only one that can possibly make sense. So lets look at your alternative. You claim that God is, complexity and all, exactly as it is he/she/it is (I'm answering for all similar religions as well :P) because it is the epitome of pure perfection and could not possibly exist in any other form. We have a simple counter for that: your god is only perfect by its own definition. Let's imagine a series of powerful evil entities, each of them creating its own world and then claiming to be perfect. All of them can be very different, yet all of them can lay the claim to being perfect. So which one of them is perfect? They created the Universe, so they get to define "perfect", right? Oh wait, that would be circular logic. In other words a god can not be the "only true perfect thing" in the "beginning of the Universe"-sense just because he/she/it says so. A god like that would have to be perfect in an objective manner, and in my opinion: a) objective perfection doesn't exist, and b) if it did, then it wouldn't involve the killings and skulduggery of the gods of contemporary holy books. (Of course from a philosophical point of view I may well be wrong and that's what perfection's all about. Ain't philosophy grand? ::))
-
@ratcharmer: I like your way of approaching the arguments. ;D
-
I don't know if I've ever concisely addressed your OP, so here goes.
Burden of Proof
When this argument is made, it also a statement on the nature in our universe. Basically, it's generally impossible to prove a negative. The statement "God does not exist" can't be proven because if (for example) I were to prove that god can't have some specific quality, you just say that god doesn't have that quality.
This idea of the burden of proof holds for leprechauns, unicorns, and the loch ness monster, and it holds for god.
My response to the statement
You can't prove god doesn't exist!
is:
You can't prove leprechauns don't exist. Why don't you believe in them?
I have a favorite quote on the subject, which is
I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
-Stephen F Roberts
It sounds ridiculous
I'll grant you this one. It has no place in determining how true something is.
Historical Contradictions
This is important because it shows that the bible isn't infallible. Once it's shown to be fallible, any claim based specifically on how the bible is infallible is invalid.
An example:
Person A: The bible says homosexuality is a sin!
Person B: The bible was wrong about Moses meeting the pharaoh. Maybe it's wrong about homosexuality.
Note that any response along the lines of "But the bible is the word of god!" can't be used here because we've already established that the bible can be wrong.
Invisible Pink Unicorn
This is actually just an extension on the burden of proof idea, just given a specific form.
Basically the way to use it is this. If I can take an argument for god and replace every instance of "god" with "invisible pink unicorn", it isn't a very good argument for god.
Omnipotence paradox
The whole problem with supposing something to be omnipotent IS that it's logically impossible.
If you claim that god isn't bound by logic, then regardless of whether he exists or not, any further debate on him is pointless because it is only through logic that debate is possible.
-
That's a good concise summary, but I wouldn't have bothered. At this point it's just descended into cognitive dissonance territory.
-
And 1000 years ago walking on the moon would be just as unrealistic. Or Tv. Or countless other inventions. What counts one thing out as not being scientifically, possible, while something else is? Have you seen the newest GI Joe Movie? What about nano bots that could eat metal? An invisibility suit that takes pictures of whats behind you and puts it in front? An accelerator suit? Do you consider any of those ideas a plausible idea?
Where do you draw the line?
Generally things that violate causality, ie allow effects to proceed their causes, are a pretty good place to draw the line.
Would that make the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment scientifically impossible?
-
Would that make the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment scientifically impossible?
Causality isn't violated in that experiment, so it's just fine. An explanation of exactly what's going on is rather involved, but if you'd like to look at it, here (http://www.springerlink.com/content/g7w8441j75831k4x/)'s a proof that causality violations are impossible if the current equations of quantum theory are correct.
-
Would that make the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment scientifically impossible?
Causality isn't violated in that experiment, so it's just fine. An explanation of exactly what's going on is rather involved, but if you'd like to look at it, here (http://www.springerlink.com/content/g7w8441j75831k4x/)'s a proof that causality violations are impossible if the current equations of quantum theory are correct.
The photon decides whether it's going to act as a particle or as a wave based on a future event (the erasure or non-erasure of its path information). That sort of violates casualty.
I read some books about the topic and some of them had opposing opinions, so some of them were probably wrong. This book may or may not be wrong too. Anyway, I'll read it tomorrow. I'm interested but too tired to read atm.