No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Mar 25, 2018 3:31 am

Serendipper wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:What are the consequences to you if you ignore that 'fact' i.e. the universe is alive like you and me?

The consequence is that I will need to figure out how life came from nonlife.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtqtKnWriCM

At 16:50, he says:

"Now all this is perfectly idiotic. If you would think that the idea of the universe as being the creation of a benevolent old gentleman, although he's not so benevolent he takes a sort of "this hurts me more than it hurts you" sort of attitude... uh, you can have that on the one hand and if that becomes uncomfortable, you can exchange it for its opposite: the idea that the ultimate reality doesn't have any intelligence at all. At least that gets rid of the ole bogie in the sky, but in exchange for a picture of the world that is completely stupid. Now these ideas don't make any sense... especially the last one.... because you cannot get an intelligent organism, such as a human being, out of an unintelligent universe."

How do you suppose intelligent organisms came from an unintelligent universe?
What are the consequences to you if you ignore the above question?
If you ignore the above question and your answer, you will not have the onus to prove the impossible, i.e. God exists.

If you reflect deeply, the only consequence is 'you' will feel uneasy with it, i.e. psychologically while reality will go on as it does.
You are indeed psychologically compelled [subliminally] to believe it.

I'm psychologically compelled to believe 1+1=2 and therefore that should be reason to dismiss it?
There is no psychological compulsion on you to believe 1+1=2 as you have recognized you can do away with [dismiss] it when dealing with lumps of clay, drop of water, and the likes.

Meanwhile it is all the same in reality, i.e. you will eat, sleep, work, etc. but with one less burden, i.e. Chop Wood Carry Water.

You have the extra burden of deciding how life came from nonlife. I have one less burden than you do.
There is no burden on me to decide how life came from non-life.
What is fact is life emerged and one has to deal with it at the present.

Note my explanation above, discarding the Brahman concept is based on refined psychological introspection and practices to develop the relevant state of mind to sustain it.

All you've done is avoid the question. Why would you abandon a sensible theory of the universe for one that doesn't make any sense? So far the only reason you have given me is that the sensible solution was too sensible and because it was sensible, it was therefore wrong.
It make more sense [empirically] to accept life emerged and one has to deal with it.

How can you say the idea of God is sensible when it is non-sense, i.e. based on crude reasoning rather than empirical sense.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Serendipper » Sun Mar 25, 2018 4:52 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
Serendipper wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:What are the consequences to you if you ignore that 'fact' i.e. the universe is alive like you and me?

The consequence is that I will need to figure out how life came from nonlife.

How do you suppose intelligent organisms came from an unintelligent universe?
What are the consequences to you if you ignore the above question?

If I ignored the question then being on a philosophy forum would be pointless, but I intend to document your continued avoidance of the question: How do you suppose intelligent organisms came from an unintelligent universe?

If you ignore the above question and your answer, you will not have the onus to prove the impossible, i.e. God exists.

So your recommendation is:

Image

If you reflect deeply, the only consequence is 'you' will feel uneasy with it, i.e. psychologically while reality will go on as it does.
You are indeed psychologically compelled [subliminally] to believe it.

I'm psychologically compelled to believe 1+1=2 and therefore that should be reason to dismiss it?
There is no psychological compulsion on you to believe 1+1=2

Then what compels me to believe it if not psychological compulsions?

Meanwhile it is all the same in reality, i.e. you will eat, sleep, work, etc. but with one less burden, i.e. Chop Wood Carry Water.

You have the extra burden of deciding how life came from nonlife. I have one less burden than you do.
There is no burden on me to decide how life came from non-life.

I suppose ignoring the burden makes it seem like it's not there.

What is fact is life emerged and one has to deal with it at the present.

Emerged? Can you prove that? If life emerged, that means it came from something that wasn't life, so substantiate your claim and stop dodging the question.

Within the philosophy forum rules (which I suppose do not apply here in the religion section):

2.2 Arguments should be made in good faith: no trolling. If a moderator sees a poster presenting an argument and dismissing any counterpoints without engaging them, or suspects someone of presenting arguments purely for the sake of inflaming debate or annoying other posters, a warning may be issued. http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=175550

I'm not suggesting that such a rule be enforced in this instance, but merely drawing your attention to your ethics regarding refusal to address my question.

I want to know why you forsook the brahman concept for a lifeless collection of nuts and bolts if you have no idea how those nuts and bolts turned into people. Why forsake a sensible concept for an insolvable problem and then suggest ignoring the problem as a solution? And why come on a philosophy forum if you're so void of curiosity such that you can so easily ignore philosophical problems underpinning your own philosophy? And if you haven't solved your own problems, why are you proselytizing your philosophy?

Note my explanation above, discarding the Brahman concept is based on refined psychological introspection and practices to develop the relevant state of mind to sustain it.

All you've done is avoid the question. Why would you abandon a sensible theory of the universe for one that doesn't make any sense? So far the only reason you have given me is that the sensible solution was too sensible and because it was sensible, it was therefore wrong.
It make more sense [empirically] to accept life emerged and one has to deal with it.

Substantiate your claim that life emerged and your claim that such emergence is empirical.

How can you say the idea of God is sensible when it is non-sense, i.e. based on crude reasoning rather than empirical sense.

Because life cannot come from nothing. If life had a beginning, then whatever engendered it would therefore be a simpler/higher/different form of life. There could never have been a time when the life property (whatever that is) was not inherent to the universe or else life would have come from nonlife and that's like suggesting "color" came from "shape" somehow.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Mar 27, 2018 3:46 am

Serendipper wrote:
Then how do you reconcile the fact that I am alive and conscious and so are you and lots of other lifeforms if the universe itself does not also contain that property?
or 'how does experiencing arise in matter?' We can understand how complex phenomena might arise out of simpler phenomena. But how does interiority arise? One of the assumptions, generally not defended but simply accepted apriori, is that experiencing (consciousness) is a byproduct of complexity (or some forms of it). But we have no proof or even the slightest evidence of this. Another way to couch the issue and to ask your question is 'Why did you decide that the default is not alive, not experiencing, not conscious? In the law we have a presumption of innocence (and of sanity, for that matter=? For most scientists there is a presumption of not being alive, not being conscious, with life seen as the exception. This default has no demonstration.

Interestingly we can see a progression within science, against great internal resistance, from white men are sentient and other humans are less so, with animals as machines and no one even mentions plants. To the current scientific consensus, where animals are seen as conscious intentional being and now plant intelligence and even choice is coming in to the mainstream. The bias is being overcome. From a pantheist perspective the bias is seen as 1) less likely to be the right default and 2) problematically counterintuitive - as you have been arguing.

Rupert Sheldrake is a wonderful scientist who has found many of these not justified (yet) defaults in mainstream science. To me it seems much more likely that interiority is universal and that the bias of humans being special is still causing tremendous unscientific resistance to now proven phenomena within science, but also to real rational evaluation of the default dead unintelligent universe with life as a rare scum on dead matter as the exception.

My cuo buono is: how does it serve people to have the defaults they have. I mean, why leave that type of criticism to the atheists?
How does it serve a group to see everything as machine-like, modular, and mainly dead?

Monsanto provides a great case study for that religion.
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker
 
Posts: 887
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Serendipper » Tue Mar 27, 2018 5:17 am

Excellent comments; keep em coming!

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Serendipper wrote:
Then how do you reconcile the fact that I am alive and conscious and so are you and lots of other lifeforms if the universe itself does not also contain that property?
or 'how does experiencing arise in matter?' We can understand how complex phenomena might arise out of simpler phenomena. But how does interiority arise?

I'll have to remember that word: interiority.

One of the assumptions, generally not defended but simply accepted apriori, is that experiencing (consciousness) is a byproduct of complexity (or some forms of it). But we have no proof or even the slightest evidence of this.

Exactly! It makes no sense to me that life is a function of complexity. It makes so little sense that I previously conjured a spirit to explain the missing "lifeness" because there is no way "experience" can be a result of a deterministic process of falling dominoes, and since I hadn't yet considered that life is "interior"/inherent to the universe, a spirit was my only alternative (and a consequence of my indoctrination).

Another way to couch the issue and to ask your question is 'Why did you decide that the default is not alive, not experiencing, not conscious?

As far as I can tell, his reasoning is that to believe the default is alive is a mental illness; therefore the default cannot be alive. He calls it "reify", which is to make something out of nothing or to make a thing within a continuum. So he says that because we have a natural tendency to reify, that god cannot exist since we must assume that we've reified god from nothing (I don't know why we must assume that).

But I don't think he's seeing that he's reified nonlife from life, or has cut a "thing" from a continuum and created a division that doesn't actually exist. So the same mental illness argument applies.

Interestingly we can see a progression within science, against great internal resistance, from white men are sentient and other humans are less so, with animals as machines and no one even mentions plants. To the current scientific consensus, where animals are seen as conscious intentional being and now plant intelligence and even choice is coming in to the mainstream. The bias is being overcome. From a pantheist perspective the bias is seen as 1) less likely to be the right default and 2) problematically counterintuitive - as you have been arguing.

There are fashions in science and philosophy. One must be trendy!

Rupert Sheldrake is a wonderful scientist who has found many of these not justified (yet) defaults in mainstream science. To me it seems much more likely that interiority is universal and that the bias of humans being special is still causing tremendous unscientific resistance to now proven phenomena within science, but also to real rational evaluation of the default dead unintelligent universe with life as a rare scum on dead matter as the exception.

Yes, did we come into the world or come out of it? If we came in, then from where did we come? If we came out, then the ingredients were already here.
It's important to point out that life could never have had a beginning or else it would have come from nonlife, or nothing, like color could somehow come from shape.

My cuo buono is: how does it serve people to have the defaults they have. I mean, why leave that type of criticism to the atheists?
How does it serve a group to see everything as machine-like, modular, and mainly dead?

So they feel justified in kicking the universe around. To have a sense of self apart from everything else. Otherwise we may have too much reverence if we saw life in everything.

I used to be that way even though I wasn't atheist and I believed I had a spirit which set me apart from all this junk. But now I see it's a consequence of the self/other and the more oneness you have with the universe, the less of a self you'll feel simply because there is less other to engender self. Since people love to identify themselves, they're going to relentlessly cling to their junkyards ;)

Monsanto provides a great case study for that religion.

LOL yeah I see what you mean.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Mar 27, 2018 8:08 am

Serendipity, you might like Ken Wilber. I have problems with his Buddhism, but that's me.

You don't have to give up on spirit. I use interiority to deal with the materialist paradigm drones.

Another fun line of argument with determinists is to challenge the possibiliity of an utterly determined creature, that is, them for example, being rational. And if it was rational, the determinist was rational, how could he know it, I mean, he would have to - is determined to - think his arguments made sense. Getting that addictive 'my argument just made sense quale' should be ignored by a determinist if he, in this case, really believes in determinism. Once he hears that argument he should be forever in doubt. Not that he will be, but he should be, as a believing determinist. 1) I know I am completely determined. 2) I know my arguments will seem right to me 3) I cannot know if it is because they are right or for some other reason that compels me, utterly, to believe they are right. The arguments seem right, but that's just a quale.

But then a determinist can't help but contradict himself, ha, ha.
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker
 
Posts: 887
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Serendipper » Tue Mar 27, 2018 5:01 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Serendipity, you might like Ken Wilber. I have problems with his Buddhism, but that's me.

Cool I'll check him out. The main problem I have with buddhism is if we do not exist, then why did the buddha come back to eliminate suffering? If the key to the ending of suffering is to realize that there is no one to suffer, then there is no suffering to end.

You don't have to give up on spirit. I use interiority to deal with the materialist paradigm drones.

Well what I mean is that I hadn't considered that a spirit could be native to the universe instead of given by a monarchical god who is separate from the universe, so my only choices at the time was either to believe in that type of god or to believe the dead universe somehow created life.

The way I think of spirit is like the spirit of the great outdoors, the spirit of fun, the spirit of the wild.

Like the song Fred Bear:

There I was back in the wild again.
I felt right at home, where I belong.
I had the feeling, coming over me again.
Just like it happened so many times before. eh.
The Spirit of the Woods is like an old good friend.
Makes me feel warm and good inside.
I knew his name and it was good to see him again.
Cause in the wind he's still alive.

We're not alone when we're in the great outdoors
We got his spirit We got his soul
He will guide our steps and our arrows home
The restless spirit still roams
Oh Fred Bear
Walk with me down the trails again.
Take me back, back where I belong.
Fred Bear
I'm glad to have you at my side my friend
And I'll join you in the big hunt before too long


(If some of our teenage thrill seekers really want to go out and get a thrill.
Let them go up into the northwest and let them tangle with a Grizzly bear
Or Polar bear or brown bear and get that effect that will cleanse the soul.)



Spirit is wind or breath, which seems to be an effect with no cause. I remember being <5 yrs old and looking out the window during a storm and thinking the trees were making the ruckus.

"The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit."

Another fun line of argument with determinists is to challenge the possibiliity of an utterly determined creature, that is, them for example, being rational. And if it was rational, the determinist was rational, how could he know it, I mean, he would have to - is determined to - think his arguments made sense. Getting that addictive 'my argument just made sense quale' should be ignored by a determinist if he, in this case, really believes in determinism. Once he hears that argument he should be forever in doubt. Not that he will be, but he should be, as a believing determinist. 1) I know I am completely determined. 2) I know my arguments will seem right to me 3) I cannot know if it is because they are right or for some other reason that compels me, utterly, to believe they are right. The arguments seem right, but that's just a quale.

I used to believe computers could never be conscious since it's just a glorified set of deterministic switches, like dominoes, and I couldn't see how that would result in a feeling of experience, but now I'm not so sure because if spirit is in the atom, then a computer is more than switches.

I think it boils down to every effect needing a cause, but if the causes can never be known, then it's as if events do not have causes and randomness exists. Freewill and spirit is somehow mixed up in that I think.

I have to remember that anytime there is a trap that I can't get out of, such as the freewill problem, it means I and the trap are one and there is no trap or anyone to get out of it. Trying to peer into my own inner workings is a trap with no exit because a subject cannot be an object to itself and therefore the fundamental deterministic variables can never be known.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Mar 28, 2018 10:19 am

Serendipper wrote:Well what I mean is that I hadn't considered that a spirit could be native to the universe instead of given by a monarchical god who is separate from the universe, so my only choices at the time was either to believe in that type of god or to believe the dead universe somehow created life.
Right, I get that and in discussions with atheists that kind of false dilemma is so apriori-ily jamming into the unconscious of the discussion it takes a huge project to even open the discussion.
The way I think of spirit is like the spirit of the great outdoors, the spirit of fun, the spirit of the wild.
It has now almost become taboo to speak of spirit, even in philosophical contexts. You rapidly get labelled a dualist and there seems to be this consensus that 1) that is the only possible option (that, for example, there cannot be a spectrum in the one substance with spirit at one end and physical things on the other) and 2) we are so, like, way past dualism, if you mention it you are, like, so uncool. Oh, you are a dualist, so you are wrong, nuff said.

That we have particles and waves as part of physicalism does not make it a dualism, even though it would have a couple of hundred years ago.


I used to believe computers could never be conscious since it's just a glorified set of deterministic switches, like dominoes, and I couldn't see how that would result in a feeling of experience, but now I'm not so sure because if spirit is in the atom, then a computer is more than switches.
Sure, I think we may be able to make conscious entities. Perhaps they will be in agony all the time. Perhaps....and so on.

I think it boils down to every effect needing a cause, but if the causes can never be known, then it's as if events do not have causes and randomness exists. Freewill and spirit is somehow mixed up in that I think.

I have to remember that anytime there is a trap that I can't get out of, such as the freewill problem, it means I and the trap are one and there is no trap or anyone to get out of it. Trying to peer into my own inner workings is a trap with no exit because a subject cannot be an object to itself and therefore the fundamental deterministic variables can never be known.
Given the epistemological consequences of assuming that you can only believe what you believe - which one must believe if one is a determinist - then it seems like agnositicism should be the rule for them. People tend to think that if it makes sense on the page/screen then we can then know our beliefs are correct. The problem is ALL KNOWLEDGE is in situ. I wake up. I remember things correctly or not. And in this muddled deeply embedded experiencing, I determine (have already assumed) what is true, what is not, what might be, how likely, how one knows and so on. We are not on the page, we are (seemingly) fallible beings experiencing our way forward.
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker
 
Posts: 887
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Serendipper » Wed Mar 28, 2018 5:01 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Serendipper wrote:Well what I mean is that I hadn't considered that a spirit could be native to the universe instead of given by a monarchical god who is separate from the universe, so my only choices at the time was either to believe in that type of god or to believe the dead universe somehow created life.
Right, I get that and in discussions with atheists that kind of false dilemma is so apriori-ily jamming into the unconscious of the discussion it takes a huge project to even open the discussion.

Yup, I've been there, but can't get past being labeled and categorized for the conversation to open up.

The way I think of spirit is like the spirit of the great outdoors, the spirit of fun, the spirit of the wild.
It has now almost become taboo to speak of spirit, even in philosophical contexts. You rapidly get labelled a dualist and there seems to be this consensus that 1) that is the only possible option (that, for example, there cannot be a spectrum in the one substance with spirit at one end and physical things on the other) and 2) we are so, like, way past dualism, if you mention it you are, like, so uncool. Oh, you are a dualist, so you are wrong, nuff said.

What's wrong with dualism?

That we have particles and waves as part of physicalism does not make it a dualism, even though it would have a couple of hundred years ago.

I think the waves act like particles, but are not particles. Probably they are highly directional waves due to very high frequency.

Given the epistemological consequences of assuming that you can only believe what you believe - which one must believe if one is a determinist - then it seems like agnositicism should be the rule for them. People tend to think that if it makes sense on the page/screen then we can then know our beliefs are correct. The problem is ALL KNOWLEDGE is in situ. I wake up. I remember things correctly or not. And in this muddled deeply embedded experiencing, I determine (have already assumed) what is true, what is not, what might be, how likely, how one knows and so on. We are not on the page, we are (seemingly) fallible beings experiencing our way forward.

I don't believe we can't control what we believe. No amount of effort and determination can make someone believe what they don't. If knowledge comes to light that changes our beliefs, that was largely out of our control as well.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby phyllo » Wed Mar 28, 2018 6:37 pm

Given the epistemological consequences of assuming that you can only believe what you believe - which one must believe if one is a determinist - then it seems like agnositicism should be the rule for them.
There is no rule because determinism justifies every position - "I have no control. I can't not believe what I believe."
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10873
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Mar 28, 2018 8:23 pm

phyllo wrote:
Given the epistemological consequences of assuming that you can only believe what you believe - which one must believe if one is a determinist - then it seems like agnositicism should be the rule for them.
There is no rule because determinism justifies every position - "I have no control. I can't not believe what I believe."
I think we might be saying the same thing. At least the quote you have there is what I am saying.
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker
 
Posts: 887
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby phyllo » Wed Mar 28, 2018 8:31 pm

Did I read it wrong? :confusion-confused:

You seemed to be saying that agnosticism can be or ought to be preferentially selected by determinists.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10873
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Mar 28, 2018 8:47 pm

phyllo wrote:Did I read it wrong? :confusion-confused:

You seemed to be saying that agnosticism can be or ought to be preferentially selected by determinists.

.Ah, ok, I get the issue. Yes, that is what I was saying.

And yes, what you are saying above could be argued by a determinist, but they can no longer say they are rational. None of them will want to admit that they cannot know whether their conclusions were rationally arrived at. I would love it if they did. It would be so sweet and honest. I know determinism is the case even though this means I cannot know if I arrived at that conclusion rationally, though it sure seems like it.
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker
 
Posts: 887
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Serendipper » Wed Mar 28, 2018 9:00 pm

Either something determines an effect or the effect is causeless. That is our options.

The best argument for freewill is to say that the causes of the effect cannot be known within this universe and therefore, they may as well be regarded as causeless events (randomness).
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Mar 28, 2018 9:08 pm

Serendipper wrote:Either something determines an effect or the effect is causeless. That is our options.

The best argument for freewill is to say that the causes of the effect cannot be known within this universe and therefore, they may as well be regarded as causeless events (randomness).
This may all be true, but to be a determinist undermines your ability to claim you know you arrived at this belief rationally. I think that is likely also true for believing in free will. That's why I do not claim to believe in either FW or D or that I can know either is true or not or whether some other option is available.
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker
 
Posts: 887
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Serendipper » Wed Mar 28, 2018 9:49 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Serendipper wrote:Either something determines an effect or the effect is causeless. That is our options.

The best argument for freewill is to say that the causes of the effect cannot be known within this universe and therefore, they may as well be regarded as causeless events (randomness).
This may all be true, but to be a determinist undermines your ability to claim you know you arrived at this belief rationally.

If I am a determinist, then there is no "me" and therefore no one to have a belief.

I think that is likely also true for believing in free will. That's why I do not claim to believe in either FW or D or that I can know either is true or not or whether some other option is available.

Maybe, but I can't conceptualize how an effect doesn't have a cause. How can something come from nothing?

John Bell proved randomness exists. If it is physically and mathematically impossible to predict results, then the results are fundamentally random. Now, 'why' we can't predict the results is debatable, but it's established that we cannot from within the universe. Random events are causeless events because if we could know the causes, then it would be possible to predict the outcome. So the only way it would be absolutely impossible to predict the result is if there were no cause, effectively. But it doesn't make sense to have something come from nothing, so we must conclude that causes exist, but cannot be known. Now that leads us to the next conclusion which is if causes exist, but cannot be known, then we are obviously looking at ourselves. To make an observation requires that we affect what we are observing and now it's an infinite regression of affectation while accounting for the effect of our affect which produces yet another effect that we must account for and so on forever. Anytime we find ourselves in a trap like that, we know we are looking at ourselves.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby omar » Thu Mar 29, 2018 1:06 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
Since the idea of God emerged >10,000 years ago till now there are no convincing proofs for the existence of a God. Many theists concede their belief in a God is based on faith.
I have demonstrated here 'God is an Impossibility.'

Despite the above, why do theists continue to believe in a God even to the extent of defending their theism with all sorts of contorted arguments and to the extreme of killing non-theists when they perceive threats against theism? Abraham was willing to kill his own son upon hearing a command from God. Many theists are willing to commit all sorts
of abominable acts in the name of their God on the belief they are carrying out their divine duty to please God. Why?

Since there are no strong evidence to prove God exists as real within an empirical-rational reality, I believe the reason why the majority of humans believe in a God is due to a very forceful existential psychological impulse that is compelling [subliminally] them to believe in a God.

Views?


Proofs depend on the judge of those "proof" on being "proofs" at all and even whether they are "convincing". I know that over the course of several treads you feels as if you have "demonstrated" such concept is an impossibility. But that is about a concept.
The Self itself is such a concept, which many philosophers, from Hume to Nietzsche, have shown to be an impossibility as a concept. Now, I'm not interested in arguing for or against belief but simply noting that believing is what we do, is in our nature. We act with certainty on what amount to unproved beliefs. People do not kill because God commanded it. That is a rationalization used by murderers. People kill for God just as easily and with the same clear conscience as the do for their Tribe, their State or Nation, or Father-land. Why don't you ask about those proofs for those concepts? Sure "God" can be a dangerous concept, but so can those others, and so I argue that it is nothing in the concept but in the users of the concepts where dangers lie.
omar
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3316
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 2:52 am
Location: Where Crocs thrive

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Mar 29, 2018 10:03 am

Serendipper wrote:If I am a determinist, then there is no "me" and therefore no one to have a belief.
You might be an epiphenomenal observer.

Maybe, but I can't conceptualize how an effect doesn't have a cause. How can something come from nothing?
How can a particle be a wave (and a particle)? How can the future cause the past? (see some dual slit experimental results) You asked a question, but often people state things with certainty, sure of their ability to deduce and rule out. I am skeptical about ruling out in these ways. Of course, when I plan my days, I use deduction. I gotta do something, avoid other things. But I am wary of metaphysical deduction leading to certainty when I have no practical reason to do it.
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker
 
Posts: 887
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Serendipper » Thu Mar 29, 2018 4:18 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Serendipper wrote:If I am a determinist, then there is no "me" and therefore no one to have a belief.
You might be an epiphenomenal observer.

Where did you learn a word like that? lol

Maybe, but I can't conceptualize how an effect doesn't have a cause. How can something come from nothing?
How can a particle be a wave (and a particle)?

I don't think there is such a thing as a particle. If there were, it would be made of smaller particles until we get down to waves or an infinity of smaller particles, which makes no sense. Waves can act like particles, but one particle can't act like a wave since a wave needs a medium.

Light comes from the vibration of charge (acceleration of charge), which is sinusoidal. The difference between a neutrino and gamma ray is just a relatively small difference of frequency. I think the equation is E=hf and E=mc^2 so then hf=mc^2 and we have m=hf/c^2 or just that mass is a function of frequency and is measured in electron-volts. The higher the frequency, the more directional and "particle-ish" the wave becomes.

How can the future cause the past? (see some dual slit experimental results)

The delayed choice quantum eraser experiment. Maybe the future doesn't cause the past, but the continuum is continuous: whatever caused the decision to look during the interval between the slits and target was there all along and we can't decide to look at something without affecting what we're looking at.

You asked a question, but often people state things with certainty, sure of their ability to deduce and rule out. I am skeptical about ruling out in these ways. Of course, when I plan my days, I use deduction. I gotta do something, avoid other things. But I am wary of metaphysical deduction leading to certainty when I have no practical reason to do it.

Alan Watts said everyone has a metaphysical assumption that they can't prove. Watch out for it! All statements must be supported with empirical evidence, except this one ;)
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Mar 29, 2018 4:45 pm

Serendipper wrote:Where did you learn a word like that? lol
Philosophy books. Though as a noun not an adjective.


I don't think there is such a thing as a particle. If there were, it would be made of smaller particles until we get down to waves or an infinity of smaller particles, which makes no sense. Waves can act like particles, but one particle can't act like a wave since a wave needs a medium.
but single particles do act like waves, again, the slit experiments. Or waves act like particles. Either way we have things acting like both, depending on stuff like observers and that's just weird.



Alan Watts said everyone has a metaphysical assumption that they can't prove. Watch out for it! All statements must be supported with empirical evidence, except this one ;)

Ah, fuck empiricism. No one, absolutely no one relies only on empirical evidence.
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker
 
Posts: 887
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby A Shieldmaiden » Fri Mar 30, 2018 4:27 am

Skepticism is certainly rampant in modern society regarding the Scriptures which states that God is exactly what it claims Him to be. There are those who say they do not believe in the existence of God because no one has ever seen Him, in other words they believe in only that which they have the ability to see. How many of us have stood on a mountain and surveyed the surrounding landscape in awe and admiration, exclaiming that there must be a God who brought all these things into existence. Louis Pasteur, the French biologist, declared: "Posterity will one day laugh at the sublime foolishness of the materialistic philosophy. The more I study nature the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.

No evidence for God........ it is all around you.
The man that walks his own road, walks alone

Old Norse Proverb
User avatar
A Shieldmaiden
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1972
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 6:13 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Serendipper » Fri Mar 30, 2018 5:18 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Serendipper wrote:Where did you learn a word like that? lol
Philosophy books. Though as a noun not an adjective.

You have a pretty good memory then ;)


I don't think there is such a thing as a particle. If there were, it would be made of smaller particles until we get down to waves or an infinity of smaller particles, which makes no sense. Waves can act like particles, but one particle can't act like a wave since a wave needs a medium.
but single particles do act like waves, again, the slit experiments. Or waves act like particles. Either way we have things acting like both, depending on stuff like observers and that's just weird.

"Depending on observers" tells us it's all connected. The cause of the decision to take a measurement came from the same field of existence that the wave is traveling through. There is no way to have an objective perspective.


Alan Watts said everyone has a metaphysical assumption that they can't prove. Watch out for it! All statements must be supported with empirical evidence, except this one ;)

Ah, fuck empiricism. No one, absolutely no one relies only on empirical evidence.

It was a joke: all statements needing to be supported by empirical evidence is the metaphysical assumption that can't be proved.

Or like my claiming there is no objective truth. How can that be an objectively true statement? My reasoning is objective truth cannot have an observer or it would then be subjective truth.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Serendipper » Fri Mar 30, 2018 5:24 am

A Shieldmaiden wrote:Skepticism is certainly rampant in modern society regarding the Scriptures which states that God is exactly what it claims Him to be. There are those who say they do not believe in the existence of God because no one has ever seen Him, in other words they believe in only that which they have the ability to see. How many of us have stood on a mountain and surveyed the surrounding landscape in awe and admiration, exclaiming that there must be a God who brought all these things into existence. Louis Pasteur, the French biologist, declared: "Posterity will one day laugh at the sublime foolishness of the materialistic philosophy. The more I study nature the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.

No evidence for God........ it is all around you.

Creationism is still materialism isn't it? The potter makes pots of clay (lifeless stuff with life breathed into it). The only difference between the Ceramic Model and the Fully Automatic Model is the creator: one is God and the other is the automatic process.

But what if the creator and creature are the same thing? No lifeless junk needing life breathed into it because the life is already there.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby A Shieldmaiden » Fri Mar 30, 2018 6:58 am

Do you know of anything that is superior to your mind? and

Do you honestly believe that any power or force which is inferior to your mind could have produced you?
The man that walks his own road, walks alone

Old Norse Proverb
User avatar
A Shieldmaiden
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1972
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 6:13 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Fri Mar 30, 2018 11:21 am

Serendipper wrote:You have a pretty good memory then ;)

Pernicious beliefs are like finding used band-aids in my soup. I never forget the moment I find them.

"Depending on observers" tells us it's all connected. The cause of the decision to take a measurement came from the same field of existence that the wave is traveling through. There is no way to have an objective perspective.
Or perhaps to avoid one. :mrgreen:

It was a joke: all statements needing to be supported by empirical evidence is the metaphysical assumption that can't be proved.
Ah, OK. It's also a heuristic no one follows.
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker
 
Posts: 887
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Serendipper » Fri Mar 30, 2018 3:19 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Serendipper wrote:You have a pretty good memory then ;)

Pernicious beliefs are like finding used band-aids in my soup. I never forget the moment I find them.

Yes, but how do you remember the brand of band-aid? I can never remember the quadratic formula; only how to derive it. I can retain processes, concepts, but I have trouble with abstracts. I guess that makes me a perspicacious dimwit :lol:

"Depending on observers" tells us it's all connected. The cause of the decision to take a measurement came from the same field of existence that the wave is traveling through. There is no way to have an objective perspective.
Or perhaps to avoid one. :mrgreen:

Hmm... I haven't thought about that angle. Can an object be a subject to itself? My supposition is that objectivity can never be realized because the moment there is an observer (subjective interpretation), it's no longer objectivity.

This hearkens back to a conversation concerning the valuing of money. One position is that all the valuers constitute one entity and that makes it objective valuation. My perspective is each valuer is an entity of many, making it a collection of subjective valuations whereas objective valuation would be a value set by the government. The reasoning for that is the government dictation doesn't require a subjective observer for it to be so: even if there were no trade occurring in the universe, the value would still be set in stone and therefore objective. My position is that objectivity doesn't require and, in fact, cannot have an observer (subjective interpretation). Of course, we could still observe the government's dictation of the value of money, but not through our own subjective lens of valuation (we can have no influence). The other point is that it's still somewhat true of collective valuation: that the value is set by a higher entity which makes it objective. It's a tough problem to sort out.

It was a joke: all statements needing to be supported by empirical evidence is the metaphysical assumption that can't be proved.
Ah, OK. It's also a heuristic no one follows.

They say they do :-?
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users