Belief... or lack thereof

[babylonfalling]

I am. Not a lot, but a little, yes.

Do you have extra locks on the door?
Who do you think is trying to kill you?
So it’s a life/death concern but you’re only worried a little.

 

[PRmerger]

OK, but we’ll have to pass on Catholicism. It’s obviously not correct in that case. And Jesus a mortal prophet?

I’m already heading towards Islam. I wonder what they’ve got. Something about moon cleaving and flying horses, I think. Sounds a bit dodgy. Should I check it out?

Are you just messing with me? Are you really ready to embrace the idea of God’s existence being a viable proposition???

If so, then sure, go check out Islam. After you believe that the God of the Philosophers does exist, then you ought to investigate the world religions.

We can chat about that next.

Only if you’re not messing with me though.

 

[Nixbits]

PRmerger:

Well, unless your relationship with your wife consists of you standing before her naked, and staring into her eyes as your only form of communication, you do have all of the above analogs.

I don’t think that’s a valid statement. And not just because I don’t have a wife, I have a husband.

PRmerger:

You must see the point that any spousal relationship mimics a religious relationship with God.

Perhaps, but that’s not what we are debating. Again you seem to have forgotten. Let me try one more time. If you met and conversed freely with God, physically in person, at a local restaurant or a sports event, sometimes just the two of you, sometimes with your family, three of four times a week, would you need organised religion? Pocaracas suggested (ages ago) that we would not, and I agree with him. You stated (ages ago) that you would.

If you still hold to that position, then we’ll just have to agree to disagree, because our discussion is not getting anywhere.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t think that’s a valid statement. And not just because I don’t have a wife, I have a husband.

“Not just because”? You have a husband and not a wife and that is one of the reasons my statement is invalid?

This demonstrates an impoverished ability to think in the abstract.

Perhaps, but that’s not what we are debating. Again you seem to have forgotten. Let me try one more time. If you met and conversed freely with God, physically in person, at a local restaurant or a sports event, sometimes just the two of you, sometimes with your family, three of four times a week, would you need organised religion? Pocaracas suggested (ages ago) that we would not, and I agree with him. You stated (ages ago) that you would.

Well, Nix, this means that the restaurant is required for you to meet.

And that proves my point.

Again, unless you simply stand naked before your Other, simply staring into the eyes, you need something else (that is, religion) to communicate.

And even then, you’re still using something to communicate with the Other, so…

 

[pocaracas]

Firstly, why don’t you show me what evidence there is for the multiverse?

And it needs to be able to be tested, since testing of hypotheses is how science demonstrates truth.

You can follow the links from the citations for the papers describing the experiments and their results:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect#Measurement
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam#Experimental_evidence_.28and_counter-evidence.29

Your turn.
####################

Oh. You’re saying that God has always existed…and this means what, again, as far as the double standard you’re embracing?

“I believe that the multiverse could exist, even though there’s no evidence for its existence!”

And

“I won’t believe in God’s existence because there’s no evidence for his existence!”

You don’t see that as a double standard because God has always existed?

Huh?

First, if we’re going to talk about things we believe “could” exist, then I’d go all-in and say I believe everything our imaginations can cook up could exist.
However, I won’t tell you that I believe they do exist.
I hope you can appreciate the difference in these two perspectives. And perhaps Bradski will disagree with my all-in belief in what could exist?

Secondly, I don’t see it as a double standard because one of the unevidenced claims requires something seemingly far more complex than the other… I consider a consciousness far more complex than quantum foam, or virtual particles. And a consciousness of the dimension that God is supposed to be… is even more complex.

 

[pocaracas]

Do you have extra locks on the door?
Who do you think is trying to kill you?
So it’s a life/death concern but you’re only worried a little.

How many institutions/companies do you think you’d have to query before you’d arrive at my home address?
How many of those would be willing to provide you with enough information to reach that goal?

Let me see…
You’d need, this site’s administrators/mods to provide you my IP address… that’s all they have access to.
Then, you could go to whois and figure out which ISP I use at home.
Then contact that ISP and connect a billing address with the IP used at that time when I was logged. I know that ISPs will only disclose that information to law enforcement agencies, and only with a court order… so… You’d need access to my country’s law enforcement and court systems to provide it.
Even then, you’d probably go against the “we don’t keep those records” excuse that ISPs tend to give.

Given that, I’d say I’m pretty safe from normal people… even those particularly determined in finding out where I am.
I cannot say the same of some organized institution with enough resources to pull through such a feat… That’s why I don’t go to Muslim forums, where people from such institutions may lurk.

 

[Bradski]

First, if we’re going to talk about things we believeAnd perhaps Bradski will disagree with my all-in belief in what could exist?

Hmmm. Shades of Russell’s Celestial Teapot. Philosophically I’d guess that we’d have to say yes. But as for belief…

As for belief, it comes down to evidence and reasonable expectations. If there is a reasonable expectation, you don’t need much evidence to form a belief. If my wife says that there’s a kookaburra in the tree in the garden, then no further evidence than her statement is required. Likewise getting on a plane or driving across a bridge. You have a reasonable expectation that you will get where you are going safely (not faith, PR…but a reasonable expectation).

If there isn’t a reasonable expectation (celestial teapots for example) then evidence is required and the lower the expectation, the stronger the evidence needs to be (extraordinary claims etc).

 

[Bradski]

Are you just messing with me? Are you really ready to embrace the idea of God’s existence being a viable proposition???

Just a philosophical exercise, PR. Nothing more.

And I checked out Islam. Very similar to Mormonism in that some guy was given a message by God, had it transcribed and we have to believe it happened just as written. As evidence for a deity, that’s about as weak as it gets (‘God spoke to me personally and this is what He said’).

There’s a much chance of me believing that as believing a guy coming up to me in the street and him telling me that a voice in his head (God, wouldn’t you know), told hiim that the end was nigh. Why should I believe one and not the other?

So here’s my God. I don’t anthropomorphise it, so it’s not a Him or a Her. It contains all knowledge but it isn’t omniscient. It’s the most powerful thing there is but is not omnipotent. It has always existed but here’s a chance it is not eternal. We interact with it daily but it’s not personal. It started everything and it maintains all. It inspires awe and a lot of people worship it. A lot of people love it.

We all came from it and when we die, we will return to it. We don’t live forever, but what we are formed from has always existed and when we die it will always exist. Each of us should be eternally grateful for this brief moment of existence that it has given us because it is capricious and will take it all away without warning. I actually do thank it on ocassion.

I don’t need anything else. I mean, what more could you ask for…

 

[PRmerger]

You can follow the links from the citations for the papers describing the experiments and their results:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect#Measurement
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam#Experimental_evidence_.28and_counter-evidence.29

Your turn.

LOL!

None of those are “experiments” re: the MV.

None, poca.

Each argument for the MV can be refuted on this alone: it falls apart because it does not follow the cardinal rule of science: testability.

So, as such, there is not a single credible argument for the existence of the MV.

 

[PRmerger]

First, if we’re going to talk about things we believe “could” exist, then I’d go all-in and say I believe everything our imaginations can cook up could exist.

Nah. We’re not talking about things we believe “could” exist.

We are talking about reality and what does exist, and our reasons for believing what does exist.

Secondly, I don’t see it as a double standard because one of the unevidenced claims requires something seemingly far more complex than the other… I consider a consciousness far more complex than quantum foam, or virtual particles. And a consciousness of the dimension that God is supposed to be… is even more complex.

This is a ridiculous objection, poca.

The degree of complexity does not refute the parallel any more than a Christmas tree’s complexity compared to an earlobe, a fleshy piece of cartilage, refutes that analogy previously given.

You still have to explain how you can legitimately hold a double standard:

“I consider it plausible for the MV to exist, even though there’s no way to demonstrate its existence.”

And

“I won’t consider it possible for God to exist until there is a way to demonstrate his existence.”

 

[PRmerger]

Evolution is a kind of magic, or if you like, a fairy tale for adults.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[PRmerger]

As for belief, it comes down to evidence and reasonable expectations. If there is a reasonable expectation, you don’t need much evidence to form a belief. If my wife says that there’s a kookaburra in the tree in the garden, then no further evidence than her statement is required. Likewise getting on a plane or driving across a bridge. You have a reasonable expectation that you will get where you are going safely (not faith, PR…but a reasonable expectation).

It is indeed faith, Bradski. Faith is nothing but a trust in the veracity of a statement based on your trust in the source of this statement.

 

[PRmerger]

If there isn’t a reasonable expectation (celestial teapots for example) then evidence is required and the lower the expectation, the stronger the evidence needs to be (extraordinary claims etc).

No, Bradski.

Carl Sagan’s “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”?

You’ve simply had, er, faith in this statement without really examining its accuracy.



In fact, probability theorists demonstrate that the oft-repeated man-made tradition that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is absolutely FALSE.

"Probability theorists studying what sort of evidence it would take to establish a highly improbable event came to realize that if you just weigh the improbability of the event against the reliability of the testimony, we’d have to be sceptical of many commonly accepted claims. Rather what’s crucial is the probability that we should have the evidence we do if the extraordinary event had not occurred.3 This can easily offset any improbability of the event itself. In the case of the resurrection of Jesus, for example, this means that we must also ask, “What is the probability of the facts of the empty tomb, the post-mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples’ belief in Jesus’ resurrection, if the resurrection had not occurred?” It is highly, highly, highly, improbable that we should have that evidence if the resurrection had not occurred.

Read more: reasonablefaith.org/steph…#ixzz3rHpceBSQ

IOW: extraordinary claims require SUFFICIENT evidence. Not extraordinary evidence.

 

[PRmerger]

Just a philosophical exercise, PR. Nothing more.

Okey dokey, then.

And I checked out Islam. Very similar to Mormonism in that some guy was given a message by God, had it transcribed and we have to believe it happened just as written. As evidence for a deity, that’s about as weak as it gets (‘God spoke to me personally and this is what He said’).

You are absolutely correct.

So here’s my God. I don’t anthropomorphise it, so it’s not a Him or a Her. It contains all knowledge but it isn’t omniscient. It’s the most powerful thing there is but is not omnipotent. It has always existed but here’s a chance it is not eternal. We interact with it daily but it’s not personal. It started everything and it maintains all. It inspires awe and a lot of people worship it. A lot of people love it.

Ok…but I will say that logically your entity cannot be God–it simply is a description of a “superhero only more awesome”…but I can work with this definition until it breaks down later.

We all came from it and when we die, we will return to it. We don’t live forever, but what we are formed from has always existed and when we die it will always exist. Each of us should be eternally grateful for this brief moment of existence that it has given us because it is capricious and will take it all away without warning. I actually do thank it on ocassion.

I don’t need anything else. I mean, what more could you ask for…

So let’s talk about Christianity now.

Can you concede that the historical Jesus existed?

I think you’ve said in the past that you can’t grant that–it may simply be a myth.

But I really don’t think you really want to endorse the view of the Mythical Jesus–there’s nary an academic who is willing to deny that the man, Jesus Christ, existed.

There is hardly a single academic, atheist or believer, who disputes that Jesus Christ, the historical Jew of ancient Palestine, lived, preached, established a church and was killed by Roman authorities.

That really puts you in the realm of the 6000 year old earthers, the anti-vaxxers, the Holocaust deniers.

Don’t you wish to distance yourself from that type of whackiness?

I don’t mean to be provocative here, but I really don’t think you’re embraced the idea of the Mythical Jesus. I think *you *were just trying to be provocative when you mentioned that in the past?

 

[MPat]

hehe… We’ll see.

We will.

The evidence for the existence of imaginary friends is pretty much indistinguishable from the evidence for the existence of God… I think that’s more or less how I said it.

You did. It is a false and badly supported claim, although it might be emotionally pleasant for you. And I have offered a counterexample.

You, for some reason brought forth martyrs… I tried to explain how their conviction of the reality of God is no evidence for the actual existence of God.
A conviction which is indistinguishable from a child’s conviction of the reality of her imaginary friend.
From the outside, both claims of the reality of such beings are identical.

Does the child actually have such conviction? If he doesn’t (and I suspect that he doesn’t), then all this falls.

Children with such friends don’t usually get in a situation where someone will kill them unless they recant their claim of how real that imaginary friend is… so… yeah… perhaps martyrs are not a valid counter-example, huh?

Um, you acknowledged the difference between evidence for religions and for imaginary friends that I have noted, and then you conclude that it is not a valid counterexample?

I’m afraid it is not how it works. Instead, you either have to concede that my counterexample works and disproves your claim that evidence of religions and imaginary friends is indistinguishable (that, in turn, means that all arguments that depend on this claim fail), or to explain what is wrong with it.

The consequences of that… well… one would be that I’d say that God does not exist, for it is also a product of the human brain at work.
Somewhat consistent of me being an atheist, and with everything I’ve been saying about psychology.

Yes, getting you to be a bit more consistent would be kinda nice.

Sometimes… you make the weirdest leaps… how did you get there?!
Good thing businesses don’t make a habit of relying on the existence of something that seems indistinguishable from imaginary friends, huh?

You have claimed that you reject religions because they are related to the psychological features that business also relies on. In that case it would be inconsistent of you not to reject business (or to take back the claim).

But, of course, it looks like you do not care about consistency that much…

It’s a part of it, yes…
I guess I’ll steal some of this wording on my weekend attempt at drafting the big argument.

Feel free to do so. After all, I already have prepared an answer…

It’s still better to have the self-delusion of some security against known self-delusionary methods, than nothing.
Both accuracy and, maybe, self-delusion.

Um, no, it is not better. It is much worse. Such fake invulnerability makes you much more vulnerable to self-delusions and makes it much harder to detect and recover from them.

You’re right… I got waylaid by something I wrote about “looking at them all individually” and thought I meant all religions there… my bad.

OK, just try do investigate more simple cases as well.

Yes, I want to know… but the gospels only lay it out there… they don’t say how they got to that info.
But, of course, if you accept that Jesus is a part of God, then anything that he says is representative of divine knowledge, so it would contain such information.

Well, “Jesus is a part of God” is not really a good way to put it (after all, our belief is that God is simple and has no “parts”), but yes, I think that you should accept that in such case we do have an explanation.

 

[MPat]

It’s like reading fiction… one has to willingly suspend disbelief.
It’s not the same thing as reading about reality.

Well, can you at least read the Feser’s outline as if it was fiction?

After all, I have read all those things you have claimed without agreeing with them - and was even able to rewords your arguments once in a while (with some success). Is there some reason why you can’t even do the reading part?

Meta… indeed.

I’m afraid I do not get your point. You have made claims that would seem to indicate that “Step I” was something about Big Bang, I have corrected you that “Step I” is basic metaphysics, and now you respond with “Meta… indeed.”?

The same applies for anything else that comes out of human imagination… unicorns, dragons, fairies, leprechauns, nymphs, the pyramids of Giza, UFOs, Aliens, etc…

Until some physical verification is achieved, those things are considered not to exist.

Really? Will you tell the ones working in SETI that they must believe that aliens do not exist? Naturally, that would mean SETI has to be closed down…

That, coincidentally, means that, even if evidence would be there to be found, we wouldn’t find it without at least a temporary assumption that aliens exist. It is not that different with religions - if you refuse to consider God’s existence seriously, you will not find any evidence.

That may be why I never agreed to it:

Really? You have refused to accept the principle that non-existing things don’t do anything, offered a counterexample, and now, when the counterexample has been shown to be wrong, you claim that that’s why you rejected that principle?

I’m afraid it is not how it works. In fact, now you get to either accept the principle, offer a different counterexample, or to concede that your rejection is not that rational…

Because that alternative explanation is based on actual physics.

My point is that this explanation has nothing to do with that basic metaphysics. It is not an “alternative explanation” - I am not even sure that it conflicts with statements of basic metaphysics in any way.

Of course, if it would be found to conflict with them, I think it would be possible to make a case that this “alternative explanation” is just science fiction - but I don’t think that will be necessary.

Perhaps… Still, I may be wrong, so I wait.

So, you are waiting for something that (as you concede) is impossible? Doesn’t look like a reasonable thing to do…

Oh, well… Defending atheism seems to require some sacrifices from reason,

As always, something palpable, testable, even something as finicky as psychology, is far more likely to be correct than philosophical arguments or miracles.
Immaterial evidence for religion carries much less weight than statistical psychological studies done on actual people.
I’m sorry, but that’s how things are.

So, in you view things that are “testable”, “tested” - and disproved (after all, in one recent study - see cbsnews.com/news/results-of-many-psychology-experiments-cant-be-duplicated-study-finds/ - about 40 per cent of repeated psychological experiments haven’t given the original results), have more weight than things that are not disproved? Looks pretty unreasonable…

Also, psychology is pretty irrelevant here. Something can be true even if it is accepted for a bad reason.

Take the example of the very reasonable existence of aether, the medium where electro-magnetic waves travel… turned out not to exist, no matter how many philosophical arguments existed for its existence… and they certainly did exist. There’s a cautionary tale…

OK, list those philosophical arguments in favour of ether. Something tells me you won’t be able to (or you will list something other than philosophical arguments).

LOL! Yes it is.
Remember, people who come up with arguments for the existence of God start out considering that the result is possible… most, if not all, are even convinced of it.
Certainly, that adds a bit of bias to the argument’s persuasiveness… so it’s a premise to accepting the things you’re setting out to do… a very basic premise. Like when all my cooking tastes wonderful (except when it gets burnt).
Psychology at work, again.

I’m afraid that you’re projecting (to use that same psychology ). You think that it is impossible that God exists (etc.), thus confirmation bias starts its work and you take even disproof of your arguments as something that confirms your views (I have cited a couple of examples in those two posts).

Instead, God’s existence is a conclusion. “Basic premises” would be basic self-evident statements about the way things are, like “Things that do not exist do not do anything.”. Even in case of argument from authority, the “basic premise” would be something like “My mother wouldn’t lie to me.”.

 

[Bradski]

So let’s talk about Christianity now.

Can you concede that the historical Jesus existed? I think you’ve said in the past that you can’t grant that–it may simply be a myth.

Jesus the prophet? It’s necessary to believe that He was the son of God if you are a Christian. That’s not a requirement for my belief. In fact, it’s not possible as I don’t believe in gods. Christians generally ask me what created everything, implying that there must be something omnipotent that could have done this, therefore God.

But what I believe in didn’t require creation. It has always existed. Occam’s razor comes in handy. Christians say God did it. I say Nature IS it. You’d say that you are part of God’s creation. I say that I am part of creation itself. The cosmos wasn’t created for us. We’re not separated from it. We are an integral part of it.

It’s just reached the point where it has become self aware. Kinda cool…

 

[DeusExMachina]

So I’m an atheist, yippee!

What does that mean?
The dictionary typically provides two possibilities, one of them does apply quite nicely: a person who disbelieves Some will call this simply “agnostic”, “agnostic atheist” or “weak atheist”… I don’t care… For me, I’m just atheist.

I’ve been in a few threads on this forum and some of them have veered a bit off-topic (can’t take all the blame for it, but some is certainly on me ) so those threads ended up closed.
I’d like this thread to be one where we can discuss any detail concerning how this disbelief of mine affects any particular aspect of life, of how I view the world, of how I envision that which is, as far as I am aware, unknown… and even that which is unknowable…

There are also some people in this forum who seem to operate under a few misconceptions about atheists, so I’d like to address them… Here’s one:

• All-mighty Lady-Chance-did-it: If no God creator of the Cosmos made all this and provided that mighty initial spark for life, then chance must have done it - no purpose, no intent, no reason… Or something like this, right?
  Well, I prefer not to be so bleak, but ultimately, yes… Under the assumption that no God exists, there seems to have been no consciousness that somehow started the Universe. Mind you, we, human race, don’t know how the Universe came into being. We can trace it back to the big bang… well, almost to the Big Bang and then our known physics becomes unsuitable, so the real answer is “I don’t know”, actually, no one knows. If anyone claims to know, they’re making it up. Any claim of divine revelation is also seen as making it up.

So, provided no God is available, why do people believe in them? How did that happen?
Sadly, written history starts at a time when religions already exist, so we don’t have any way of knowing the answer to this question.
We can try to reason it out, using the few pieces left behind for archaeologists to find, mingling them with known psychological traits shared by most humans (and likely shared with those humans who started the belief in spiritual entities).
Bah… we can never know the particulars, but my general guess is that, at some point, the frustration of not knowing many answers to questions that were burning their early curiosity-ridden minds led them to speculation… from wild speculation told over a campfire to a story which feels like it’s conveying the reality of things would go but a few generations, if any at all.
And then… just build upon it. The evolution of religions… it seems there are books written on that subject… (no, I didn’t read that… I arrived at that conclusion independently). It does make some sense, seeing as Christianity itself is clearly an evolution of the Judaic model.

With this, my mind is satisfied as it allows for everything that we see and experience to be caused by natural means.

Feel free to pick my atheism apart… I welcome you!

Well, looking through this thread, it appears that you are not in fact as openminded as you would have us believe and I suspect (though I doubt I’m the only one) that you suffer from various naive delusions

 

[DeusExMachina]

[cont.]

It’s like reading fiction… one has to willingly suspend disbelief.
It’s not the same thing as reading about reality.

Meta… indeed.

The same applies for anything else that comes out of human imagination… unicorns, dragons, fairies, leprechauns, nymphs, the pyramids of Giza, UFOs, Aliens, etc…

Until some physical verification is achieved, those things are considered not to exist.

That may be why I never agreed to it:

Because that alternative explanation is based on actual physics.

Perhaps… Still, I may be wrong, so I wait.

As always, something palpable, testable, even something as finicky as psychology, is far more likely to be correct than philosophical arguments or miracles.
Immaterial evidence for religion carries much less weight than statistical psychological studies done on actual people.
I’m sorry, but that’s how things are.

Take the example of the very reasonable existence of aether, the medium where electro-magnetic waves travel… turned out not to exist, no matter how many philosophical arguments existed for its existence… and they certainly did exist. There’s a cautionary tale…

LOL! Yes it is.
Remember, people who come up with arguments for the existence of God start out considering that the result is possible… most, if not all, are even convinced of it.
Certainly, that adds a bit of bias to the argument’s persuasiveness… so it’s a premise to accepting the things you’re setting out to do… a very basic premise. Like when all my cooking tastes wonderful (except when it gets burnt).
Psychology at work, again.

Except the Pyramids of Giza are probably the most famous work of ancient architechture on the planet Despite the fact they are “physically verified” your listing them with those other things makes it look as if you do not believe they exist and perhaps think you know better than the hundreds of Egyptologists who have studied these pyramids for years

 

[pocaracas]

LOL!

None of those are “experiments” re: the MV.

None, poca.

Each argument for the MV can be refuted on this alone: it falls apart because it does not follow the cardinal rule of science: testability.

So, as such, there is not a single credible argument for the existence of the MV.

They show that space-time provides a mechanism for the emergence of particles out of empty-space.
Such mechanism can and does occur at any point in space-time… as far as we can tell, there seems to be some random distribution to the virtual fields, which can, in turn, lead to the emergence of more than one particle, locally… perhaps a whole Universe… And, since this happens in a multitude of places, it’s possible that such a confluence of locally generated particles has happened elsewhere, thus we have more than one Universe.
Of course, it’s conjecture. It relies on this being the mechanism that actually did bring our Universe forth and that’s still to be determined… my guess is that, if this ever becomes determined, then a multiverse is almost established…

################

Nah. We’re not talking about things we believe “could” exist.

We are talking about reality and what does exist, and our reasons for believing what does exist.

Good… then why were you talking about things that “could” exist?

This is a ridiculous objection, poca.

The degree of complexity does not refute the parallel any more than a Christmas tree’s complexity compared to an earlobe, a fleshy piece of cartilage, refutes that analogy previously given.

You still have to explain how you can legitimately hold a double standard:

“I consider it plausible for the MV to exist, even though there’s no way to demonstrate its existence.”

And

“I won’t consider it possible for God to exist until there is a way to demonstrate his existence.”

Ridiculous? well… if you think that you need complexity to bring forth simple things that then assemble themselves to become complex, but never quite as complex as the complex thing that originated the simple things… well… we go back to the main assumption being that such a maximal complexity exists in the first place.
And that goes against observations of everything else in the Universe.