And that isn't even "clever" or "logic". That's simply just the mainline understanding many of the central figures of Christian thought have taken to be the relation between revelation and the Bible. There's a reason why the Christian tradition doesn't worship the Bible. Since the early church they have safeguarded against the heresy of worshiping text, even if that text be canonical scripture.
So have you had an experience with god through prayer?
No, but I might believe some people do.
I might believe that they had some experience also. But there is no justification for either of us to accept that the reason for this experience is god.
Since there is no evidence otherwise, I can't reject that as an explanation.
The rational thing to do is to not believe the claim that god was the cause until there is evidence.
As a scientist why would I reject something in absence of evidence to the contrary? I have a hypothesis that God exists, and yet no experiment that I can run would prove or disprove this claim. Science doesn't tell me to reject my hypothesis.
Yet i have managed to reject the Christian God, with solid, nigh-undisputable evidence. Hah!
Thats not possible, you can't have evidence for the non-existence of something. The lack of evidence on their side just suggests sloppiness
He kinda have to believe me due to "absence of evidence to the contrary".
I'm not talking to you rational people. :p
lol his hypothesis of "god exist" would most likely be rejected, because guess what comes after hypothesis what do u do? test it. And if you failed to test it, it gets scrapped. Thats why it is the scientific method and yes science will tell you that you need to reject your "educated guess" as you cant test/experiment/ prove it.
PLease tell me what "tests" you have run to see if there is a god. Given that God exists outside of the material universe, did you go there and look?
On October 18 2013 03:50 koreasilver wrote: And that isn't even "clever" or "logic". That's simply just the mainline understanding many of the central figures of Christian thought have taken to be the relation between revelation and the Bible. There's a reason why the Christian tradition doesn't worship the Bible. Since the early church they have safeguarded against the heresy of worshiping text, even if that text be canonical scripture.
And this is where the difference between Christian tradition and fundamentalism is quite important, in that the fundies have effectively attempted to cover up the likes of Augustine and Luther as they seek to reinvent the the base of Christian doctrine.
On October 18 2013 03:50 koreasilver wrote: And that isn't even "clever" or "logic". That's simply just the mainline understanding many of the central figures of Christian thought have understood the relation between revelation and the Bible. There's a reason why the Christian tradition doesn't worship the Bible. Since the early church they have safeguarded against the heresy of worshiping text, even if that text be canonical scripture.
It would be a tradition in itself to worship the Bible and follow it in the same way that the muslim culture does. The same can be said for anything in life. You can be so involved in church ministry that you're doing so many great things for God, but you're not actually spending time with him or getting to know him. We do our best to live by the Bible because of what Christ did for us, and because we know what Christ would want us to do. We do it out of a heart of gratitude and because we desire to serve God, not because we have to earn his favor (or feel that we should). The whole point of the Bible is to reconcile us back to himself.
On October 17 2013 17:24 Myrkskog wrote: So when I say that supernatural Mayor McCheese exists. Your default position is to believe me until it is proven that supernatural Mayor McCheese does not exist?
I don't know how this object is defined, but assuming that you're going to define it such that it can't be observed and is not logically contradictory, I have no default. Neither belief that it exists nor belief that it doesn't exist is more logical.
Belief that it doesn't exist is more logical. You have never seen it, which indicates it doesn't exist. You have no proof to counter that. Since that indication, no matter how weak, is stronger than nothing, it's more logical to go with the stance that it doesn't exist.
I thought we had a breakthrough like 2 comments earlier, but I guess not. Not having seen God is not an indicator because I haven't looked in the right place. If I take as a hypothesis that there are socks *in my sock drawer* and then I look around Central Park and see no socks, I can't take that as evidence that there are not socks *in my sock drawer*. The hypothesis in this case is that there is a God *outside the material universe* so I can't gather any evidence about it as long as I am looking within the material universe.
Your argument is thus, more or less, that since god doesn't exist, you can't say he doesn't exist. God is in a place we can't look and can't affect us (because if he can affect us, that's all the body of proof we need). Thus, it's identical to him not existing. Like before, the burden on proof is on the people saying he exists.
Consider the teapots again. Let's say they are phasic cloaked, meaning they are 100% undetectable and even if we took a spaceship and flew through the teapot, we would notice nothing. What's the point of saying it exists? For all intents and purposes, it does not.
So I'm going to assume for here on out that we have accepted the argument that, for any given object, if that object is not logically contradictory and that object cannot be detected by us, then we should not necessarily assume that that object doesn't exist.
In the case of God interacting with the material world, all that means is that the interaction has to be very hard to detect. I call this the Minimalist God, and I tried to outline it earlier. Mostly this god would interact with us through prayer because we are really unable to look inside somebodies brain and tell exactly what thing is causing a particular interaction.
Another way that this could work is if you accept determinism, and then accept that god created the world knowing what the initial conditions would lead to. This allows "God's Plan" without God ever having to reach in and tinker with our world.
Basically, there are plenty of conceptions of a God that still has an impact on the world, without having to have observable material interactions.
On October 17 2013 16:51 packrat386 wrote: [quote]
So when i said I came to a different conclusion from Russel, I have to admit that I was making a stronger claim than just that, just not one that had come up earlier. In the case of God since we have no set of data to compare it with, it seems to me that there is no reason why it makes any more "sense" to start with a clean slate in that sense. I think that Russel does a good job of setting up an argument that sounds convincing, but doesn't really make the point that he has in mind.
The reason it seems more reasonable to reject the teapot than accept it is precisely because of the fact that we have a body of evidence in which we have observed some space and not seen teapots in it. Yes, we can't conclusively prove it, but we do have some reason to infer that it is less likely than the alternative. Thus we have the gut reaction of wanting to believe that there is no teapot. However in the case of God we have no such body of evidence thus no reason to believe that God is less likely than an alternative.
The only reason therefore to reject the God hypothesis is from the argument that complicated systems are inherently less likely than simple ones. However in the case of universes, we once again have no evidence to support this claim, and any claims based on smaller subsets of the universe would be a massive extrapolation. Thus it seems like there is no reason for us to err on the side of simpler systems.
The reason that I don't really care for that detail is that I think the teapot is hardly the best argument against either the existence or belief in God. A far better response is that ones own belief is equally justified as the person who is trying to convince you, and thus you have no reason to change your mind.
You're still missing the point of the teapot argument. The point of the argument is that when "God exists" is brought up, "Prove he does" makes sense, "Prove he doesn't" does not. The body of evidence against the teapot is completely irrelevant, we have no body of evidence what so ever that there isn't an invisible teapot between the sun and mars. In fact, space might be filled with invisible teapots. The teapot is just an arbitrary example, you could just say God A and God B instead. Anyone can make up anything, but if they have no basis, they have no case, no one has to prove them wrong. You simply apply that general logic to god, and you have the reasoning why the burden on proof is always on the person claiming something.
I have no reason to believe in invisible teapots. I have no reason to believe in Vishnu. I have no reason to believe in the christian God. I have no reason to believe in any God. The lack of body of evidence is exactly why.
The lack of evidence implies nothing because its a different kind of lack of evidence. In the case of the teapot its that we looked and there were teapots. In the case of God(s) we couldn't look. Thus empirics can come to no conclusion about the situation.
Your argument is based on the premise that we ought to prefer the "simpler" cases in which we have to assume the least things. However there is no reason to believe that this premise is true. The premise also doesn't pass its own test, because it would be a "simpler" system if each outcome was equally likely. Basically, this whole thing requires occam's razor, for which you can provide no proof.
Edit: Just wanted to say that I did read your edit. You still rely on the idea that the simpler system is more likely without a justification for that claim.
The justification is right there in my post: If you assume everything exists, your existance becomes ridiculous. We accept that something we have no reason to believe exist doesn't exist because it's practical.
Nobody assumes that everything exists. After you reject those things that are illogical (a square circle) and those for which there exists evidence against (zombies in my closet) you aren't left with so many things that our existence is ridiculous.
We are left with infinite amount of things. For example, every single God any human has ever believed in. Invisible teapots in space. Pink unicorns with laserswords. Talking cats. Humans which are actually a million years old.
Every single god taken together is logically contradictory since part of the definition of almost all of them is that they are unique. Everything else is fine assuming that our belief in their existence is confined to those places where we can't observe them. I've been to a lot of places and have yet to see a single pink unicorn with a lasersword
Also, my argument is only that they are equally likely, not that we should presume for God.
No one has said they aren't equally likely. In fact, that's the whole point. The chance of teapots in space are equally likely to God existing. Problem is, Christians will usually not accept that, which is why the teapot argument is actually an argument.
wait wait, they have to be invisble undetectable teapots, not just the average teapot. If so then yes they seem equally likely to me. It is also equally likely that God exists or God doesn't exist.
Also, someone brought up Kierkegaard, which is a good segue into how to justify Christianity in the case that I'm right. Belief in God is necessarily a leap of faith, that's what makes it special.
Idk why you get to tack odds of 50% on God's existence... Fifty percent that he does, fifty percent he doesnt, fifty percent another god exists... Fifty percent for everybody! Come on.
I never said 50%, I said equally likely. Given all possible non-contradictory God scenarios (God, Greek Gods, Hindu gods, FSM, No god, etc.), they are all equally likely to be true.
On October 18 2013 03:50 koreasilver wrote: And that isn't even "clever" or "logic". That's simply just the mainline understanding many of the central figures of Christian thought have understood the relation between revelation and the Bible. There's a reason why the Christian tradition doesn't worship the Bible. Since the early church they have safeguarded against the heresy of worshiping text, even if that text be canonical scripture.
It would be a tradition in itself to worship the Bible and follow it in the same way that the muslim culture does. The same can be said for anything in life. You can be so involved in church ministry that you're doing so many great things for God, but you're not actually spending time with him or getting to know him. We do our best to live by the Bible because of what Christ did for us, and because we know what Christ would want us to do. We do it out of a heart of gratitude and because we desire to serve God, not because we have to earn his favor (or feel that we should). The whole point of the Bible is to reconcile us back to himself.
Who told you what the whole point of the Bible is? And be honest, the text itself did not tell you these things. Once you admit that, the whole equation opens up rather dramatically.
On October 18 2013 00:09 koreasilver wrote: What does anyone even accomplish with all this speculative nonsense on whether there is/can be a God? You're just assuaging your insecurities and grasping at straws. This is mostly pointed to the religious apologia. Trying to safeguard faith by endlessly retreating into the limits of rationality is pathetic.
Yo, this isn't me attempting to defend my faith (mostly because that would require me to know what I believe). I just think that most atheists think that its simple to prove that God doesn't exist or that you shouldn't believe in him, when in fact it is a rather complicated problem.
On October 18 2013 03:03 koreasilver wrote: I don't think there is any real way to justify a belief in God through any rational exercise. All arguments for the existence of God is bunk. Accepting this and then moving on to trying to make a space for a reasonable belief in God through some sort of agnosticism or a God-of-the-gaps is just an assuaging of an insecurity. Saying that a belief in God can be "justified" by putting it in a realm beyond rationality by negative theology is just a continuance of this. Personally, I find it to be desperate. For the believer it's really just an intellectual rationalizing exercise that attempts to safeguard the faith in artificial ways most of the time, but I'm sure there are many people that are genuinely affirmative about the whole thing and aren't just scrambling to defend the faith from the "cultured opponents". But I think it's a bit wrongheaded. That's just my personal take on this though.
I totally agree with you but you must realize that the eschewing of rationality insofar as faith and belief are concerned is an incredibly bitter and jagged pill for many, as there are relatively few out there who have read enough of the alternatives to know that they are more than "just making it up."
I would appreciate some recommendations for Books to read on these "alternatives". I like to debate the question as a rational exercise, but its pretty hard to get anywhere.
On October 18 2013 03:03 koreasilver wrote: I don't think there is any real way to justify a belief in God through any rational exercise. All arguments for the existence of God is bunk. Accepting this and then moving on to trying to make a space for a reasonable belief in God through some sort of agnosticism or a God-of-the-gaps is just an assuaging of an insecurity. Saying that a belief in God can be "justified" by putting it in a realm beyond rationality by negative theology is just a continuance of this. Personally, I find it to be desperate. For the believer it's really just an intellectual rationalizing exercise that attempts to safeguard the faith in artificial ways most of the time, but I'm sure there are many people that are genuinely affirmative about the whole thing and aren't just scrambling to defend the faith from the "cultured opponents". But I think it's a bit wrongheaded. That's just my personal take on this though.
I totally agree with you but you must realize that the eschewing of rationality insofar as faith and belief are concerned is an incredibly bitter and jagged pill for many, as there are relatively few out there who have read enough of the alternatives to know that they are more than "just making it up."
I would appreciate some recommendations for Books to read on these "alternatives". I like to debate the question as a rational exercise, but its pretty hard to get anywhere.
The problem is that there is no single book on the topic (though Aquina's Summa Theologica would be a good start). You must first understand how scholasticism started and how it was in the classrooms of Medieval Europe that faith and reason first met formally, and then move on from there. Just read up on scholasticism. You also must get away from "rational exercises"
(Generally, the split between analytical and continental philosophy also lines up here, but only loosely.)
On October 17 2013 17:24 Myrkskog wrote: So when I say that supernatural Mayor McCheese exists. Your default position is to believe me until it is proven that supernatural Mayor McCheese does not exist?
I don't know how this object is defined, but assuming that you're going to define it such that it can't be observed and is not logically contradictory, I have no default. Neither belief that it exists nor belief that it doesn't exist is more logical.
Belief that it doesn't exist is more logical. You have never seen it, which indicates it doesn't exist. You have no proof to counter that. Since that indication, no matter how weak, is stronger than nothing, it's more logical to go with the stance that it doesn't exist.
I thought we had a breakthrough like 2 comments earlier, but I guess not. Not having seen God is not an indicator because I haven't looked in the right place. If I take as a hypothesis that there are socks *in my sock drawer* and then I look around Central Park and see no socks, I can't take that as evidence that there are not socks *in my sock drawer*. The hypothesis in this case is that there is a God *outside the material universe* so I can't gather any evidence about it as long as I am looking within the material universe.
Your argument is thus, more or less, that since god doesn't exist, you can't say he doesn't exist. God is in a place we can't look and can't affect us (because if he can affect us, that's all the body of proof we need). Thus, it's identical to him not existing. Like before, the burden on proof is on the people saying he exists.
Consider the teapots again. Let's say they are phasic cloaked, meaning they are 100% undetectable and even if we took a spaceship and flew through the teapot, we would notice nothing. What's the point of saying it exists? For all intents and purposes, it does not.
So I'm going to assume for here on out that we have accepted the argument that, for any given object, if that object is not logically contradictory and that object cannot be detected by us, then we should not necessarily assume that that object doesn't exist.
In the case of God interacting with the material world, all that means is that the interaction has to be very hard to detect. I call this the Minimalist God, and I tried to outline it earlier. Mostly this god would interact with us through prayer because we are really unable to look inside somebodies brain and tell exactly what thing is causing a particular interaction.
Another way that this could work is if you accept determinism, and then accept that god created the world knowing what the initial conditions would lead to. This allows "God's Plan" without God ever having to reach in and tinker with our world.
Basically, there are plenty of conceptions of a God that still has an impact on the world, without having to have observable material interactions.
Take a step back and realise that "proving xxx doesn't exist" is simply an impossible ordeal.
To prove, one needs evidence, and there's no evidence at all, for or against, something that doesn't exist (like God). As such, we only ever attempt to prove things that exist. That people need to surrender to "he is so beyond your understanding you can't prove it" is pretty telling how much they themselves believe he exist.
Now, of course everyone is entitled to believe in whatever they want. Dudes in asylums who believe they can fly are pretty legit too. I won't stop a man if he wishes to worship the rainbow-colored pony with lightsaber. But i probably will tell him that it sound frigging retared.
On October 17 2013 17:24 Myrkskog wrote: So when I say that supernatural Mayor McCheese exists. Your default position is to believe me until it is proven that supernatural Mayor McCheese does not exist?
I don't know how this object is defined, but assuming that you're going to define it such that it can't be observed and is not logically contradictory, I have no default. Neither belief that it exists nor belief that it doesn't exist is more logical.
Belief that it doesn't exist is more logical. You have never seen it, which indicates it doesn't exist. You have no proof to counter that. Since that indication, no matter how weak, is stronger than nothing, it's more logical to go with the stance that it doesn't exist.
I thought we had a breakthrough like 2 comments earlier, but I guess not. Not having seen God is not an indicator because I haven't looked in the right place. If I take as a hypothesis that there are socks *in my sock drawer* and then I look around Central Park and see no socks, I can't take that as evidence that there are not socks *in my sock drawer*. The hypothesis in this case is that there is a God *outside the material universe* so I can't gather any evidence about it as long as I am looking within the material universe.
Your argument is thus, more or less, that since god doesn't exist, you can't say he doesn't exist. God is in a place we can't look and can't affect us (because if he can affect us, that's all the body of proof we need). Thus, it's identical to him not existing. Like before, the burden on proof is on the people saying he exists.
Consider the teapots again. Let's say they are phasic cloaked, meaning they are 100% undetectable and even if we took a spaceship and flew through the teapot, we would notice nothing. What's the point of saying it exists? For all intents and purposes, it does not.
So I'm going to assume for here on out that we have accepted the argument that, for any given object, if that object is not logically contradictory and that object cannot be detected by us, then we should not necessarily assume that that object doesn't exist.
In the case of God interacting with the material world, all that means is that the interaction has to be very hard to detect. I call this the Minimalist God, and I tried to outline it earlier. Mostly this god would interact with us through prayer because we are really unable to look inside somebodies brain and tell exactly what thing is causing a particular interaction.
Another way that this could work is if you accept determinism, and then accept that god created the world knowing what the initial conditions would lead to. This allows "God's Plan" without God ever having to reach in and tinker with our world.
Basically, there are plenty of conceptions of a God that still has an impact on the world, without having to have observable material interactions.
Take a step back and realise that "proving xxx doesn't exist" is simply an impossible ordeal.
Actually its pretty easy to do for many things. Consider the case of the square circle, its impossible to have so it doesn't exist. As for empirics, if I were to tell you that there are purple caterpillars in my sock drawer, it would be easy to collect good evidence that they don't exist.
However for God there seem to be no good logical objections (although I'm surprised nobody has brought up the problem of pain), and there seems to be no way for us to gather evidence. So yes, there is no evidence that God doesn't exist, but that's my argument
edit: also its really easy to prove that people in asylums can't fly. If they jump of a roof and they fall and kill themselves then they were wrong. We may be hesitant to test their hypothesis, but that doesn't mean its not testable.
Any religion that is proclaimed on a stage like that is not one I want to be a part of.
edit: Oh wow, its even worse than I thought. Is this a troll?
Yeah just skim to a couple parts (or just watch the first 5 minutes like you probably did), see a stage with great lights on it and with singers and say it's stupid. Then, assume i'm trolling. Sigh. You miss the entire point of Christianity if you think it's "staged." It's about worshiping the one who loves us and died for us.
his hypothesis of "god exist" would most likely be rejected, because guess what comes after hypothesis what do u do? test it. And if you failed to test it, it gets scrapped. Thats why it is the scientific method and yes science will tell you that you need to reject your "educated guess" as you cant test/experiment/ prove it.
EPT
