God does not exist

I'm just talking about religious beliefs against atheism here, nothing more. By "force your beliefs on another person" I didn't mean "try to convince people of anything you want". I was referring to "stamping out this evil thing in our world".

What a misunderstanding of a figure of speech! If by organized education, reasoning, and discussion, religious belief can be gradually voluntarily and of independent will discarded by the religious (as is happening more and more with us young folks), would that mission not be stamping out foolery?

Quote from: "beast"

A theory without any evidence behind it is meaningless - and that's what these types of religious theories are - meaningless.

I sharply disagree with this statement for a couple of reasons:

1) Religious belief is a methodology that makes assumptions from the beginning that cannot be proven (within the methodology of that given belief system).  Scientific belief is a methodology that makes assumptions from the beginning that cannot be proven (within the methodology of that given belief system).  

But why is this?  Lets imagine for example that God actually doesn't exist and that religion is a made up response to humans misinterpreting the world.  Science can and has explained this - it explains why we have this response and why it isn't true.  So it seems very convenient that religious people defend their beliefs by saying that science doesn't apply to them.

A fantastic example is the cargo cult which is a religion that we can easily see the origins of, the reasons for their beliefs and the similarities between their beliefs and other religions.  Why would it be that younger religions can easily be explained, while older ones can't?  Science doesn't apply to religion only if you are religious and you don't want to accept the facts.

2) Religions are very meaningful.  If you mean by "meaningless," "that which has no meaning," then it is a clearly preposterous claim.  Now, if you mean by "meaningless," "that which does not exist in fundamental reality" then you might have a valid point.

 

I mean the latter - sorry for the confusion.  I mean that in terms of explaining how the world came into being and why we should follow the ethical beliefs that we do follow, religion is a meaningless argument.  Actually it's not because people believe it - but in terms of providing a good argument, the fact that it can't back up what it says means that it is invalid - because people choose to believe it without real evidence gives it meaning, but it's not at all a legitimate way of arguing and the reason people believe it is because they are brainwashed from birth and because they let their primitive instincts control their beliefs.  The vast majority of people have the same religious beliefs that their parents have.

Quote from: "beast"

Can you please explain a rational reason why we can't test the existence of God with scientific method?

My argument is this:

If I mean by the word 'god' something that is a 'creator,' it is very possible that we rationally cannot test the creator's existence with scientific method.  This is essentially because the creator very well may exist outside of our world (i.e. that our world exists within the world of the creator but his does not exist inside ours).  

How can you say 'The creator very well may exist outside of our world?"  How is that more probable than "The creator does not exist" or "The creator is a giant hypnotic toad?"  There is no reason to think that a creator exists or that it exists inside or outside of our world.  Natural selection shows very well why life is like it is and the concept of a creator is completely contradictory to natural selection.  You are speculating with no reason to believe that your speculations are true.

To illustrate this, let me give an example of a possible conception of a creator.  Assume that one thousand years from now, scientists have mastered Artificial Intelligence and have been able to successfully utilize it.  If a scientist creates an Artificially Intelligent being into existence (out of energy), and places that Artificially Intelligent being in a computer program, the world of the creator is not observable from the world of the computer program that the being lives in.  Essentially, the AI being can just be a computer program itself living in a computer program.  In this sense, that being, let's call it Fred (the AI being), would be the creation of the creator (Janet).  Janet would be a 'god' (if used to mean 'creator') to Fred.  If in Fred's world, he attempts to observe that which is outside of his observable world (namely, the creator Janet), Fred will find that he cannot do so.

To me, this use of the word 'god' does not necessarily break the rules of logic or rational thought.  Keep in mind that the AI computer program analogy is only an example of how it can be possible.  Also keep in mind that Janet (the creator, or 'god' of Fred) is not the creator of her own world.  She is not omnipotent, omniscient, etc. in regards to the world she lives in.

Anyway, I believe that illustrates that there are possible conceptions of 'god' that cannot be measured scientifically from within the computer program world.

But it doesn't explain why we would think that their is a reality outside of this one, why we would think that we're 'in the computer' so to speak.  It doesn't explain why this is at all a probable likely hood while you presumably would dismiss a theory that we are actually bred on the Earth as food for aliens.

However, logic has a great deal to say. Theists are the ones making a positive claim here. It is therefore on them to bring forth evidence that God exists, not on atheists to bring evidence that he does not. It is irrational to believe a positive claim that is not substantiated by evidence.

Good point.  It is necessary for any conception of 'god' to be logical in order for it to be believed and in order for it to have any chance of existing in fundamental reality.  There are actually several logical arguments for the existence of god that are rationally obligatory (that is, no rational person can deny their truth).  However, these rational arguments for the existence of god tend to not describe the god as a 'being' (a thing with distinct properties).  Instead, these rational arguments only hold up if 'god is meant to be 'Being' (that is, "to be") or meant to be 'thinking.'  One cannot rationally deny that 'Being' or 'thinking' exists, and therefore these synonyms for 'god' are rationally obligatory.

Lets hear these "rational arguments."

Also lets be clear about our definition of God.  By God, we mean any kind of supernatural entity with some kind of influence on the world.  If you're talking about God in some other sense, a feeling of awe at how amazing the world is or a sense of inner peace - well we obviously can't argue about the existence of that God, nor is it relevant.  It's just you taking a word and using its connotations to strengthen a separate feeling.

You can believe this if you want, but that doesn't mean you can't cause a great deal of harm by trying to convince others of your beliefs, even if you do it by reasonable persuasion.

Of course.  On some level, public, social existence is about conflict of ideologies.  My point is that maybe atheists ought to try to convince others that their beliefs are right, and theists ought to do the opposite.  If everybody restricts themselves to purely rational arguments and everybody is purely rational, society will win.

But why is this? Lets imagine for example that God actually doesn't exist and that religion is a made up response to humans misinterpreting the world.

Yes, we can suppose that the character "God" or many of the mythic 'god' characters have, throughout history, been completely made up.  However, if you're going to operate within the methodology of Christianity, for example, you must begin by accepting the axioms: (1) God exists, and (2) the Bible is the word of God.

If you don't feel like playing the game of Christianity, you don't have to.  It is not rationally obligatory, as I've said.  But it is also not rationally obligatory to play the game of science (i.e. to operate within the methodology of science).  Because in order to operate within the methodology of science, you must begin by accepting the axioms: (1) Matter/Energy exists, and (2) it can be measured.

Neither of these methodologies are compulsory.  They both accept axioms that cannot be proven within their respective methodologies.

So it seems very convenient that religious people defend their beliefs by saying that science doesn't apply to them.

It's not rationally obligatory to play the game of science.  Also, religions can explain science just like science can explain religions.

I mean the latter

I thought that's what you meant.  

Actually it's not because people believe it - but in terms of providing a good argument, the fact that it can't back up what it says means that it is invalid - because people choose to believe it without real evidence gives it meaning, but it's not at all a legitimate way of arguing and the reason people believe it is because they are brainwashed from birth and because they let their primitive instincts control their beliefs. The vast majority of people have the same religious beliefs that their parents have.

Religion need not necessarily provide observable empirical evidence to be true.  However, I agree with you that most (if not all) traditional mythic religions are human imaginations.  That doesn't mean they are "meaningless" or that their gods don't exist.  Most likely, though, their gods do not exist in what I keep referring to as "fundamental reality."

How can you say 'The creator very well may exist outside of our world?" How is that more probable than "The creator does not exist" or "The creator is a giant hypnotic toad?"

Traditionally, many religions make the claim "the creator exists outside of our world."  This can be seen by looking at any "two-world" model of religion--such as the tribal religion of Christianity.  Many people would contend "God exists up there in heaven (one world) and we exist down here on earth (another world)."

My claim had nothing to do with probability.  I did not claim to believe the story I proposed.  Essentially, if the 'creator' (or 'god') is a being (that is, an entity with specific properties) then it doesn't matter what properties you mention ("giant hypnotic toad") as long as the properties aren't logically self-refuting.

To clear up your confusion about my story, though, keep in mind what the initial statement you made was.  You first asked how it is possible that a religion be true yet we humans not be able to scientifically measure god.  My solution to this problem was that the 'god' (creator) and the humans (creation) might very well exist in different worlds where there can be interaction on behalf of the creator and the world (but there need not be) but there cannot be human interaction with the creator's world.  Essentially, I solved the problem you had by showing how it is not necessarily the case that we can measure god.

You are speculating with no reason to believe that your speculations are true.

Of course I'm speculating.  You asked a question about how a religion can make the claim that God cannot be scientifically measured and I answered your question (adequately, I believe).

But it doesn't explain why we would think that their is a reality outside of this one, why we would think that we're 'in the computer' so to speak.

Like I already said, there need not be justification for my claim if it is only meant to answer your initial question.  Also keep in mind that a person may very well have justification to believe in this sort or religious model--but since we cannot know everybody else's internal thoughts, we cannot necessarily come to the same conclusions.

Lets hear these "rational arguments."

I'll give you one, called the Ontological argument for the existence of god:

The argument in a nutshell is that because a person can conceive a perfect being, that perfect being must exist because the very nature of the "perfect" being entails the characteristic that it exists.  However, ths argument quicly falls apart if you try to argue it to prove a certain entity noun-god (like the Christian God, for example).

The argument works if you think of 'god' as 'Being' (instead of a 'being').  It is impossible to think 'non-Being' because it entails 'Being' to think it in the first place.  Here, 'Being' is used as a verb ("to be").

Essentially, that's the basic argument.  I kinda skipped over some stuff because I have some other stuff to do but that's the gist of it.  It is rationally obligatory to accept the existence of this verb-god.  It is not rationally obligatory to accep the existence of the noun-gods that we hear about all the time.

Also lets be clear about our definition of God. By God, we mean any kind of supernatural entity with some kind of influence on the world.

I generally try to use the term "God" to refer to a specific character (a 'god')--most usually the character described in the Bible.  I don't know what you mean by "supernatural entity" and what kind of influence you're talking about.  I described in my last post that usually these concepts of certain 'gods' that supposedly exist (the gods that are characters in mythic religions) are not the same thing as the concept of 'god' I was describing when I said it is rationall obligatory to believe in them.

It's just you taking a word and using its connotations to strengthen a separate feeling.

It's just using the word 'god' in a different way than you grew up using it.  Please please please don't be like Ubuntu and claim that the definition of 'god' can only be meant to describe the thing you think it usually describes.  If you accept the fact that the term itself is ambiguous, you can see a difference between its usage as a verb and its usage as a noun.  You're an atheist in regards to the noun-gods.  If you're rational, you're not an atheist (although I don't think 'theist' and 'atheist' are the right words to describe verb-god--perhaps these words only refer to noun-gods) in regards to the use of the word 'god' to mean 'Being.'

I agree, except I don't think theism is rational.

edit: I mean I agree with Erasmus.

I agree, except I don't think theism is rational.

To me, that's a separate difficulty.

Being rational makes you more likely to be right.
Science and religion both offer things people want, but science has a better track record of coming through with its promises.  There are ways you can always trust the "audience" to be rational: in their own interests.  You can trust people to prefer heated homes, automobiles, clean water, etc., to everlasting life any day.  Because "our side" applies methods of argument that have some regularity, they're more likely to turn out right reguarly, and I think people will drift towards "our side" as time goes on because of this.

Of course I'm speculating.  You asked a question about how a religion can make the claim that God cannot be scientifically measured and I answered your question (adequately, I believe).

There seems to be some confusion.  Obviously people do believe crazy stuff for no reason, and it's theoretically possible to back up their crazy beliefs with speculation.  What I meant was more along the lines of why should we believe their is any possibility that that is actually true?

I'll give you one, called the Ontological argument for the existence of god:

The argument in a nutshell is that because a person can conceive a perfect being, that perfect being must exist because the very nature of the "perfect" being entails the characteristic that it exists.  However, ths argument quicly falls apart if you try to argue it to prove a certain entity noun-god (like the Christian God, for example).

The argument works if you think of 'god' as 'Being' (instead of a 'being').  It is impossible to think 'non-Being' because it entails 'Being' to think it in the first place.  Here, 'Being' is used as a verb ("to be").

Essentially, that's the basic argument.  I kinda skipped over some stuff because I have some other stuff to do but that's the gist of it.  It is rationally obligatory to accept the existence of this verb-god.  It is not rationally obligatory to accep the existence of the noun-gods that we hear about all the time.

If God is perfect and exists, surely a God that achieves the same outcome as this perfect God but by doing less is, of course, "more perfect".  Surely a god that does even less than that god is even "more perfect". - I'm sure you can see the limit I'm approaching - surely a God that achieves the same outcome for the world without actually existing is the most perfect entity.

It's just using the word 'god' in a different way than you grew up using it.  Please please please don't be like Ubuntu and claim that the definition of 'god' can only be meant to describe the thing you think it usually describes.  If you accept the fact that the term itself is ambiguous, you can see a difference between its usage as a verb and its usage as a noun.  You're an atheist in regards to the noun-gods.  If you're rational, you're not an atheist (although I don't think 'theist' and 'atheist' are the right words to describe verb-god--perhaps these words only refer to noun-gods) in regards to the use of the word 'god' to mean 'Being.'

Of course I'm not an atheist towards god as a verb.  Ubuntu is a girl.

Ubuntu is a girl.

 :x ...

I'll give you one, called the Ontological argument for the existence of god:

The argument in a nutshell is that because a person can conceive a perfect being, that perfect being must exist because the very nature of the "perfect" being entails the characteristic that it exists.  However, ths argument quicly falls apart if you try to argue it to prove a certain entity noun-god (like the Christian God, for example).

The argument works if you think of 'god' as 'Being' (instead of a 'being').  It is impossible to think 'non-Being' because it entails 'Being' to think it in the first place.  Here, 'Being' is used as a verb ("to be").

Haven't we gone over this one before?  In another thread?  I seem to recall punching that argument in the face.  Ah, here it is.

In other words, even if you think that Anselm's argument is sound, you're still not forced to believe anything other than the following: "If you conceive of God, you must conceive that he exists in reality."

I then go on to define trolls as those things more terrifying than which nothing can be imagined, and proving that trolls must exist in reality.

Quote from: "beast"

Ubuntu is a girl.

 :x ...

It's true too.  It's funny and true.  :lol:

There seems to be some confusion. Obviously people do believe crazy stuff for no reason, and it's theoretically possible to back up their crazy beliefs with speculation. What I meant was more along the lines of why should we believe their is any possibility that that is actually true?

Yes, people do believe crazy stuff for no reason sometimes.  Usually they have a reason, but not a good reason.  The point I was getting at is that I answered your question so I get a golden star :-)

By the way, it is rationally necessary to believe that there is a possibility that the story I presented is true (as long as the story I presented is rationally sound).  However, this doesn't beging to approach the probability that it is true.

If God is perfect and exists, surely a God that achieves the same outcome as this perfect God but by doing less is, of course, "more perfect"

You lost me.  Anyway, the basic thing that Anselm (and Descartes) said was that because they could conceive of a perfect being, the very definition of that perfect being would entail that it exists.  However, it's clear to see that this argument falls apart if you apply any thought to it.  But if you consider it in light of a "one-world" model and use the argument that 'god' is not referring to 'a being' but instead to 'Being' itself, it is logically sound.

Of course I'm not an atheist towards god as a verb.

I knew you would be because you're rational.

Haven't we gone over this one before? In another thread? I seem to recall punching that argument in the face.

I'm glad you punched it in the face.  I hope you don't think I was presenting it to be a proof for the existence of some entity called "God."  Instead, I was presenting it to be a proof for the existence of a verb-god as I've said several times now.  Anybody can "punch it in the face," I think.  Observe:

"I can conceive of the perfect unicorn.  Because a necessary quality of the perfect unicorn entails that it exist, unicorn's exist."  That's clearly a stupid argument.  But it's not a stupid argument if we mean something different by the word 'god.'

I'm glad you punched it in the face.  I hope you don't think I was presenting it to be a proof for the existence of some entity called "God."  Instead, I was presenting it to be a proof for the existence of a verb-god as I've said several times now.

Sorry, I was temporarily overcome by my own machismo... I was not my own master!

But clearly we aren't discussing your definition of god. We are discussing the notion of god as a literal creator, who may or may not have interfered after the moment of creation. I don't think anyone is an atheist towards your definition.

It's not rationally obligatory to play the game of science.

Sure it is, when you set foot on science's playground. When religion avoids doing that, science and religion won't be in conflict (though religion will remain by its nature in conflict with logic). But all religions that I can think of, with the possible exception of Buddhism, do step onto science's playground quite frequently. Divine actions very often are supposed to have real, measurable repercussions in the natural world (Noah's flood, for example). And, in fact, if a religion completely avoided postulating supernatural interference in the natural world, it wouldn't be religion at all; it would be philosophy.

But in any playground, it is rationally obligatory to play the game of logic.

Yes, logic is rationally obligatory.  But it is not rationally obligatory to believe:

1) Matter/energy exists, and

2) It is measurable

Quote from: "GeoGuy"

Believing that something is bad or evil (when other people do not) does not give you the right to eliminate it.

Our veterans didn't hesitate with the Nazis.

This is a horrible example, because it is the exact opposite of what I'm saying. The Nazis were the ones trying to force their beliefs on someone else, while the Americans were trying to stop them from doing so.

But yes, I did misunderstand what you meant by "stomp out", so I apologize for making that assumption.

Of course.  On some level, public, social existence is about conflict of ideologies.  My point is that maybe atheists ought to try to convince others that their beliefs are right, and theists ought to do the opposite.  If everybody restricts themselves to purely rational arguments and everybody is purely rational, society will win.

I have no problem with rational discourse. I do have a problem when radical atheists start saying that radicals of other religions are bad because they teach their followers to be intolerent, and the moderates of other religions are bad because they lend credence to the radicals by their silent acceptance.

If they want to say that people should be more tolerant, that's fine. If they say that moderates should speak up when the radicals are being intolerant, that's all well and good. But when they themselves become intolerant of moderate religious adherents because of what the radical members of the same faith are teaching, then the accusers become as bad as the accused.

Quote from: "Ubuntu"

Quote from: "GeoGuy"

Believing that something is bad or evil (when other people do not) does not give you the right to eliminate it.

Our veterans didn't hesitate with the Nazis.

This is a horrible example, because it is the exact opposite of what I'm saying. The Nazis were the ones trying to force their beliefs on someone else, while the Americans were trying to stop them from doing so.

But yes, I did misunderstand what you meant by "stomp out", so I apologize for making that assumption.

I think a more accurate example from the WWII era is the US stealing the land from under the Palistinians to give the Jews Israel.  Ever heard of the Mossad?  Their "brand" of justice is no better than Hitler's, if you ask me.

Their "brand" of justice is no better than Hitler's, if you ask me.

I never said it was.

But in the case Ubuntu is referring to, it was the Nazi party attempting to force their beliefs on the rest of the world, so trying to imply that what I was saying in some way defended Nazism is absurd.

I wasn't really directing that at you.  Moreso Ubuntu.  The Americans kicking the Nazi's ass wasn't such a bad thing, but stealing land from the Palistinians was a bad move.  I mentioned the Mossad, which is basically like Israel's version of the US's Secret Service, and they have a very... obscure way of taking care of things.

More or less what I mean, is that the US defeated one evil, just to create another.

I wasn't really directing that at you. Moreso Ubuntu. The Americans kicking the Nazi's ass wasn't such a bad thing, but stealing land from the Palistinians was a bad move. I mentioned the Mossad, which is basically like Israel's version of the US's Secret Service, and they have a very... obscure way of taking care of things.

Ah, sorry about that. I didn't pay attention to what you quoted above it.

More or less what I mean, is that the US defeated one evil, just to create another.

 I totally agree with you there.

More or less what I mean, is that the US defeated one evil, just to create another.

I totally agree with you there.

yin yang...

without evil there can exist no good...

Quote

More or less what I mean, is that the US defeated one evil, just to create another.

Quote

I totally agree with you there.

yin yang...

without evil there can exist no good...

god and the devil.  good creates evil?

If you look at it from the scientific perspective it's even stupider than the FE theory

God exists in literature.

Oh lol.  How is that relevant to the post you quoted?

There you go again.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6153&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Yes, logic is rationally obligatory.  But it is not rationally obligatory to believe:

1) Matter/energy exists, and

2) It is measurable

I don't believe that matter/energy necessarily exists or that certain or real knowledge can be extracted from tests on it, and yet I practice meaningful science almost daily in the school lab.

I don't believe that matter/energy necessarily exists or that certain or real knowledge can be extracted from tests on it, and yet I practice meaningful science almost daily in the school lab.

Okay...

Quote from: "Ubuntu"

I don't believe that matter/energy necessarily exists or that certain or real knowledge can be extracted from tests on it, and yet I practice meaningful science almost daily in the school lab.

Okay...

Therefore it is not necessary to have those beliefs to practice science.

Therefore it is not necessary to have those beliefs to practice science.

Uhhh... yes it is.  If you do not accept the existence of matter/energy and its measurability, you cannot begin to measure it (i.e. practice science).  There has to be a starting point for any methodology (axioms).  Science has axioms just like any other methodology.