Belief... or lack thereof

[You]

So… how is it going to approach me and attract me, it shouldn’t do so with boring things.

why would it use boring things. it opens a door, you look in or you don’t.

 

[pocaracas]

why would it use boring things. it opens a door, you look in or you don’t.

Have you ever been to mass?
Boring!

Don’t all other religions also open doors?.. should I look into all of them?

 

[davidv]

Have you ever been to mass?
Boring!

Don’t all other religions also open doors?.. should I look into all of them?

Why do you think the Mass is the invitation. More interesting is the individual Catholic that you know who lives their faith with joy. That is the invitation that Pope Francis wants us to send.

 

[You]

Have you ever been to mass?
Boring!

Don’t all other religions also open doors?.. should I look into all of them?

mass is the torture to death of another human being - its not boring, this person died that way to save your life and mine…

 

[pocaracas]

Why do you think the Mass is the invitation. More interesting is the individual Catholic that you know who lives their faith with joy. That is the invitation that Pope Francis wants us to send.

I married her.
Still did nothing for my lack of belief in that particular God.

 

[pocaracas]

mass is the torture to death of another human being - its not boring, this person died that way to save your life and mine…

Ugh… when you put it like that, why would I want to go there?
Torture to death of another human being?.. no, thank you.

I’ve heard this before… save my life and yours… save it from what? Is there some great peril?

 

[MPat]

What? singularities don’t exist? What doesn’t actually exist?
What blunder did I say?

The principle I used was “Whatever doesn’t actually exist cannot do anything.” (it was used to derive the principle that actualisation of potencies needs something actually existing). You wanted to leave a possible exception for singularities. In other words you are saying that singularity can do something without actually existing. I’m pointing out that that’s just absurd.

Is that clear? And do you agree your proposed possible exception is absurd?

“God is supposed to be infinite”?! Supposed?!
Really?
Weren’t we on our way to establish that God is existing and the cause of everything, the so-caller unmoved mover?

And, let me guess, if I said that God was infinite, you would complain that it hasn’t been demonstrated yet…?

OK, so, back to the point. Do you agree that it would be absurd to say that God does not exist, while still being able to perform miracles? And that acknowledgement of this absurdity must lead to accepting the abovementioned principle without exceptions?

 

[MPat]

The kind of evidence required to attest QM’s validity was not available, at the time. It has, since, become widely available.
What was once “extraordinary evidence” has become commonplace.

Such is not the case with religion…

My point has little to do with religion as such.

So, let’s try again. Do you think you use “Extraordinary evidence etc.” explicitly and consistently? If you do, did you use it for QM? Did you (yes, you personally) really have “extraordinary evidence” at the point when you accepted QM? And if you did not, how did that work with “Extraordinary etc.”?

They didn’t have the evidence that Galileo had.
They were not in a position to produce an accurate description of the Solar System.

The question was: were they (opponents of Galileo) right to reject heliocentrism, given that they did not have “extraordinary evidence”? Yes or no?

Those two look cool.
Too bad that tampering is not impossible… so… “whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth”.

You know how you keep hidden Hosts fresh? replenish the stock.
You know how you liquefy some blood enclosed in a glass jar? heat it up.

I’m sorry, I believe far more in mankind’s ability to deceive than in the existence of a God who shows himself through some anecdotal details.
However unlikely it may seem for clergymen to be deceitful, it still feels more likely than the alternative.

They were not meant to persuade you that God exists. They were meant to demonstrate that, contrary to your claim, physical evidence of some kind does exist.

A collective method?
Or the reliance on the say so of others who are also relying on the say so of yet others, who are also… in a near-endless loop of say-so’s.
How does that loop get broken?

No, I am asking you if, in abstract, this fact (that your method wouldn’t be able to detect that Catholicism (or something else) is true even if it was so) indicates that it would be a good idea to check if there are any other methods. I’ll note that “Yes.” by itself does not mean that the alternatives are better - it only means that they have to be checked.

What sense does it make to rely solely on testimony from far ago?
How can we be sure that it is accurate?
Isn’t it better to have access to the source of the information, instead of written testimony of someone who claims to have witnessed that information?
But yeah… catholicism has shielded itself from such requirements burying the source in the past and convincing people that that’s how things must be.
“Believe it is as we tell you, or burn in hell”, huh?

So, in other words, there is no reason to expect such access, but you would like to have it. Good. Unfortunately, the wishes change nothing here. Decisions do have to be made with imperfect information.

Mohamed flying up into the sky on the back of a horse (pegasus?) and cleaving the moon in half.

Good, let’s count that as two claimed Islamic miracles.

Upon returning from India, the Portuguese navigators and sailors, in the 1500’s were treated by the goddess of love to a relaxing couple of days on an enchanted island, full of nymphs. Says so right there in the book: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Os_Lus%C3%ADadas (I cheated a bit and had to use google to find the link, but just the link)

So, just a poem that was obviously meant to be understood to be fictional…? I meant claims that are advanced seriously, not something that is presented as a work of fiction.

Cupid shoots arrows into people causing them to fall in love (at first sight). You see it happening. I know I’ve felt it happen to me… must be true, huh?

Again, I meant something that is seriously meant to be a miracle.

So, let’s look at the results… Two Islamic claimed miracles and two examples that are something other than claimed miracles… You know, wouldn’t you expect to be able to produce a much longer list of claimed non-Christian miracles, if it really was true that evidence between religions was as perfectly balanced, as you claim it to be…?

If it is true, the conditions shouldn’t matter, now should they?

I’m afraid that does not answer my question. Let’s repeat it: “Are you saying that you would prefer to reject Catholicism even if it’s true, unless it is true under ‘your’ conditions [the same evidence that was available to someone else being available to you and anyone else]?”

Are you saying you have statistics on the people that go to Hell?
Gimme, gimme, gimme!!

“Intellectual honesty” springs to mind…
Why would a creator entity, relegate people who just can’t bring themselves to believe the thing that other people believe, while attempting to be honest with themselves in their view that such belief is not at all obvious, nor backed by anything that can be attributed to beyond this Universe?

err… it’s reality. It’s because of QM that fusion works and that we can think of harnessing that energy for future use.

Let’s get back to the point. When asked about possibility to detect truth of Catholicism using your methods, you have rhetorically asked: “What difference does it make?”. I have given you two “differences”: knowing the truth for its own sake and possible consequences resulting from being wrong. You seemed to be unenthusiastic about knowing the truth for its own sake (we’re dealing with it above this paragraph) and claimed that mentioning the consequences is “fear-mongering”. So, I am asking you if you really think that consequences of being wrong (or not knowing the truth) are irrelevant in deciding if it is worth to know the truth. And, if you do think so, what do you consider relevant in that case?

 

[pocaracas]

The principle I used was “Whatever doesn’t actually exist cannot do anything.” (it was used to derive the principle that actualisation of potencies needs something actually existing). You wanted to leave a possible exception for singularities. In other words you are saying that singularity can do something without actually existing. I’m pointing out that that’s just absurd.

Is that clear? And do you agree your proposed possible exception is absurd?

All this talk of act and potency relies on our perceived reality, our perceived laws of physics. I was merely pointing out that, when/where the laws of physics fail or break, this line of reasoning may also fail.
I can’t tell if it does fail or not, but this possibility must remain open, however strange or counter-intuitive it may sound.

Also, some astrophysicists are hypothesizing that, considering Dark Mater and Dark Energy (whatever these are) the total energy (E=mc^2, mass is energy, minus a constant) in the Universe adds up to a remarkable number: zero.
If all energy and mass in the Universe is zero, then… zero energy, at some point, became zero energy, but split up in positive and negative parts.
Nothing is still nothing, but locally, we perceive a part of it as something.
Strange and counter-intuitive enough for you?

And, let me guess, if I said that God was infinite, you would complain that it hasn’t been demonstrated yet…?

It just seems like you’re getting ahead of yourself…
Perhaps it’s best to avoid adding assumed features to the entity we wish to arrive at, through logical steps.

OK, so, back to the point. Do you agree that it would be absurd to say that God does not exist, while still being able to perform miracles? And that acknowledgement of this absurdity must lead to accepting the abovementioned principle without exceptions?

I don’t know… what if “The Force” is real and accounts for all miracles?
What if miracles are mostly bogus and manufactured?
What if they’re not miracles at all, but misinterpretations?
One must take care with such analysis, no?
Also, even if they are performed by a god, they may not have been performed by the God of christianity… it may be another god… a joker god, or one who once in a while gives you something to play with… and then goes to the other beliefs and gives them also something to play with… miracle claims are not exclusive to Catholicism, nor even Christianity.

 

[PRmerger]

Have you ever been to mass?
Boring!

That’s because you haven’t a clue about what’s actually happening.

Heaven comes crashing to earth at the Mass.

Boring? Pfffft!

 

[pocaracas]

My point has little to do with religion as such.

So, let’s try again. Do you think you use “Extraordinary evidence etc.” explicitly and consistently? If you do, did you use it for QM? Did you (yes, you personally) really have “extraordinary evidence” at the point when you accepted QM? And if you did not, how did that work with “Extraordinary etc.”?

When I came into the picture, the evidence for QM had become ordinary.
At the start of the 20th century, it was not ordinary, even among the scientists.
The distinction must be made. When I brought forth the example of QM, it was with reference to that time, not to now.

The question was: were they (opponents of Galileo) right to reject heliocentrism, given that they did not have “extraordinary evidence”? Yes or no?

How did they get access to that conclusion by Galileo? He must have written some sort of an essay, or book about it. I’m sure he’d have shared the evidence in there. And I’m sure that book is what got him in trouble.
So the people who rejected the conclusion of the book, either didn’t believe in the recorded evidence, or didn’t read it, or refused to test it.
I doubt they didn’t have access to those records, painstakingly gathered by methodical peering at the moon and planets…
The evidence itself… well… no photos at the time, so only whatever was in Galileo’s memory and we know how hard human memories are to extract so other people can examine them…

To answer your question with the “given” you proposed, yes, they were right to reject the unproven and counter-intuitive model.

They were not meant to persuade you that God exists. They were meant to demonstrate that, contrary to your claim, physical evidence of some kind does exist.

Very well… it exists.

No, I am asking you if, in abstract, this fact (that your method wouldn’t be able to detect that Catholicism (or something else) is true even if it was so) indicates that it would be a good idea to check if there are any other methods. I’ll note that “Yes.” by itself does not mean that the alternatives are better - it only means that they have to be checked.

The method would work, if the required evidence was presented.
Sadly, the available evidence for any religion is very similar.

But yes, considering the available evidence, it fails to detect Catholicism as true, even if it is, indeed, true.

So, in other words, there is no reason to expect such access, but you would like to have it. Good. Unfortunately, the wishes change nothing here. Decisions do have to be made with imperfect information.

Hence the moniker agnostic atheist.
Knowing that the information is far from perfect, it’s better to withhold judgement.

So, just a poem that was obviously meant to be understood to be fictional…? I meant claims that are advanced seriously, not something that is presented as a work of fiction.

Wow, wow, wow… hold on, mate… obviously meant to be fictional?!
How easily you discount a claim… tss tss tss…

Just because some text is written as an apparent documentary, that makes it worthwhile?
How about a film? The Blair Witch Project is a nice example of a film that’s not obviously meant to be understood as fictional.

(jk)

So, let’s look at the results… Two Islamic claimed miracles and two examples that are something other than claimed miracles… You know, wouldn’t you expect to be able to produce a much longer list of claimed non-Christian miracles, if it really was true that evidence between religions was as perfectly balanced, as you claim it to be…?

Now seriously, I don’t know, I’ve never been in a society that wasn’t predominantly Christian.
I’m sure Hindus have their miracles, as well as all other groups. These guys possibly have tons of them, for each of the gods… wasn’t there some statue of one of their gods in Bangladesh (or close by) that produced milk? Or one that drank milk…
I can’t remember… you forbade me from using google for this.

I’m afraid that does not answer my question. Let’s repeat it: “Are you saying that you would prefer to reject Catholicism even if it’s true, unless it is true under ‘your’ conditions [the same evidence that was available to someone else being available to you and anyone else]?”

Yes.
What sort of God leaves these matters in the faulty say-so of lowly humans?!
[cont.d]

 

[pocaracas]

[cont.]

Let’s get back to the point. When asked about possibility to detect truth of Catholicism using your methods, you have rhetorically asked: “What difference does it make?”. I have given you two “differences”: knowing the truth for its own sake and possible consequences resulting from being wrong. You seemed to be unenthusiastic about knowing the truth for its own sake (we’re dealing with it above this paragraph) and claimed that mentioning the consequences is “fear-mongering”. So, I am asking you if you really think that consequences of being wrong (or not knowing the truth) are irrelevant in deciding if it is worth to know the truth. And, if you do think so, what do you consider relevant in that case?

The damning thing is that everything is relevant.
The threat of Hell is seen as an extra aid to persuade people - a psychological booby trap.
The message of Catholicism seems to be true to a God that’s ok with such tactics… such not-very-honest tactics, but which people, prior to the 20th century, would find very difficult to spot.
Nowadays, those tactics can go by the common name of “carrot and stick”… carrot = Heaven, stick = Hell.
Where the carrot is put as the reward to accomplish the task… while the stick is used as punishment…
Carrot and stick works in many places where you want to implement some behavior. (wages vs firing, in the business model)… even works with not so smart animals…
keep the carrot dangling in front of the mule and it will perpetually attempt to reach it… kind of like Heaven, huh?
So, we come back to psychology.

If something is true, it should be discernible to anyone.
If the information is recorded as only being available to a very limited number of people, then it seems far more likely that those persons are mistaken, or deluded, or lying (or a fourth option - the recorded stories of those persons are false).
The intuitive likelihood that Catholicism is true, given the origin of the information that is held as true, is low.
The same applies for all other religions, for they all share the same sort of shady origins.

So, instead of a 50/50 split in Pascal’s Wager, we’re faced with low odds for religions and the rest for no-gods. Stacking odds in my favor!

If Catholicism is indeed true and the punishment for non-acknowledgment of that is eternity in a nasty immaterial “place”, then so be it.
Somehow, I think that OneSheep would tell you that no one ever gets the stick, as seen from this thread of his: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=976982… and I tend to agree with him.
A caring loving all powerful God would never need to resort to such human artifices, as the carrot and the stick.
So… either Catholicism is false in a few details (for the stick is never used, rendering its suggestion a bit dubious, while Heaven still exists), or it’s false altogether.
But what is Catholicism without Hell? It’s “not Catholicism”, right?

 

[pocaracas]

That’s because you haven’t a clue about what’s actually happening.

Heaven comes crashing to earth at the Mass.

Boring? Pfffft!

Been there a few times… never saw anything crashing to Earth…
Boring speeches. Boring readings. Boring rituals. Boring songs (where applicable).
There was one potentially pleasant feature… somewhere close to the end, you get to “greet” the people around you… if you could position yourself next to a pretty girl…it could become interesting, as the greeting for women is a kiss in the cheek… sadly, the majority was old people… and I never went on my own so I could pick the seat…

 

[Bradski]

God is too much a gentleman to force himself upon you.

Is this the God of the philosophers that has to be omnipotent, omniscient and eternal? You still haven’t explained why this God has to be all these things.

As I said, Christians who ask what sort of Entity could have created the universe always insist that it must have all those characteristics.

B: But, hey, aren’t they the characteristics of God in any case?
P: Well, a minor point. But I’m making the rules and you are free to imagine any entity at all.
B: As long as it has exactly the same characteristics as God.
P: Yes.
B: OK, I’ve thought of one.
P: That was quick.
B: Yes. It wasn’t a large field from which to choose. In fact there was only one.
P: And it is?
B: God.
P: Badda bing! Nothing but net! We have a winner!

OK, game over. Now we can start again by explaining why God has to have the three characteristics on which you insist.

 

[PRmerger]

Been there a few times… never saw anything crashing to Earth…
Boring speeches. Boring readings. Boring rituals. Boring songs (where applicable).
There was one potentially pleasant feature… somewhere close to the end, you get to “greet” the people around you… if you could position yourself next to a pretty girl…it could become interesting, as the greeting for women is a kiss in the cheek… sadly, the majority was old people… and I never went on my own so I could pick the seat…

What an impoverished understanding of the Divine Liturgy has just been demonstrated.

'Tis a pity. A great pity indeed.

 

[PRmerger]

Is this the God of the philosophers that has to be omnipotent, omniscient and eternal? You still haven’t explained why this God has to be all these things.

I confused as to why you don’t understand.

This seems pretty logical.

For God to have created time, he can’t be in time…therefore, he has to be eternal.
He can’t have had a beginning, because that means he was created. And if God is created, then he’s not god, right?

God has to be omnipotent because if he’s not, then there is the possibility of something more powerful that can be imagined, and that means he can’t be God, since God is he who nothing greater can be imagined.

And God has to be omniscient because if there’s some deficit in this entity’s knowledge, then he can’t be God, since, as already stated God is he who nothing greater can be imagined.

 

[pocaracas]

What an impoverished understanding of the Divine Liturgy has just been demonstrated.

'Tis a pity. A great pity indeed.

Understanding? LOL
Only a description of the events, as seen by someone who has no belief in the symbolic meaning of those events.

 

[pocaracas]

Hi PRmerger,

I confused as to why you don’t understand.

This seems pretty logical.

For God to have created time, he can’t be in time…therefore, he has to be eternal.
He can’t have had a beginning, because that means he was created. And if God is created, then he’s not god, right?

That would make sense if Time was a thing that needed creating. How did the Philosophers come to that conclusion?
How would a God act if Time was non-existent? And there I show the limitation of language… “was”, as if such an event would have been in the past… anyway, I hope you understand the question: how can action exist in a timeless realm?

I keep thinking that the Philosophers didn’t think things through…

God has to be omnipotent because if he’s not, then there is the possibility of something more powerful that can be imagined, and that means he can’t be God, since God is he who nothing greater can be imagined.

“imagined”… curious choice of word…

And God has to be omniscient because if there’s some deficit in this entity’s knowledge, then he can’t be God, since, as already stated God is he who nothing greater can be imagined.

There it is again… imagined.
It almost feels like this is an imagined entity… you know, fictional… unreal… non existent.
But I’m sure that’s not what you meant, so… care to try again?

 

[PRmerger]

Understanding? LOL
Only a description of the events, as seen by someone who has no belief in the symbolic meaning of those events.

And this excuses the great ignorance limned…how?

Imagine a petulant boy being taken to a symphony by Tchaikovsky. Tchaikovsky is actually conducting! And the boy looks like this:



All we do is feel pity for this boy for the missed opportunity. He is at a magnificent event and all he sees is people “wearing boring clothes, beating a stick, sitting in some ugly chairs, producing something that sounds really whiny that lasts a realllyyyyy longggg time.”

This just speaks volumes about his general illiteracy and peevishness, no?

But, hey, it’s ok because he “only gave a description of it”, right?

 

[pocaracas]

And this excuses the great ignorance limned…how?

Imagine a petulant boy being taken to a symphony by Tchaikovsky. Tchaikovsky is actually conducting! And the boy looks like this:

All we do is feel pity for this boy for the missed opportunity. He is at a magnificent event and all he sees is people “wearing boring clothes, beating a stick, sitting in some ugly chairs, producing something that sounds really whiny that lasts a realllyyyyy longggg time.”

This just speaks volumes about his general illiteracy and peevishness, no?

But, hey, it’s ok because he “only gave a description of it”, right?

Bad comparison…
But if you said the boy was deaf… then it could be valid.