Belief... or lack thereof

[PRmerger]

Curious. Your idea of a relationship with a spouse appears to be very different to mine. If I want to speak with, share ideas with and spend time with my spouse, I don’t need anyone else’s help or any specified way of doing these things. I wonder how many others share your views.

And what is it that you’re referencing here, vis a vis our discussion on religion?

 

[PRmerger]

Mmm. Not falsifiable. There are a few things like that.

Like what?

And that it is not scientific is not correct. More than one universe would be the likely outcome if there was an inflationary period of expansion after the Big Bang. If there was an inflationary period, there would be gravity waves.

By “not scientific” I mean: not able to be tested.

Testing one’s theories is how science works.

And there’s no way to test the theory that the MV exists.

Now, if you want to talk about how you can support the proposition that the MV exists by using philosophy, logic and reason, then I’m ok with that.

But, then, that means that you can’t reject religion because it can’t be falsified and it can’t be tested.

We may end up with the prevailing view that the multiverse is more likely than not (despite no empirical evidence).

That’s cool.

But then you’d have to embrace the prevailing view that God exists (despite no empirical evidence).

Or, at least, not reject the view that God exists because there’s no empirical evidence.

 

[PRmerger]

You are mixing up proofs, evidence, conjecture, proposals and philosophy.

For this discussion, proofs, evidence and philosophy are the same.

I have heard all the arguments for God’s existence. I have found that the vast majority of them are not credible.

So which ones do you find credible?

 

[PRmerger]

Going back to the house analogy, there’s one that God made for us. But we can’t get to it. And now it’s retreated further so we can’t see it. Now it has literally disappeared. Kinda weird. But there’s more. It wan’t just one, or a few, or millions. There have been billions of these houses built that we never knew about. Now all gone forever. Built and destroyed before even this planet existed.

But there’s still more. There have been an infinity of these places built that we could never even see in the first place. In someone else’s observable universe. Not ours. Not ever. Literally impossible. Which leads to one inescapable fact: Whatever is out there was not made for us.

Ok. It wasn’t made for us, conceded for this discussion.

Now what?

All that we have access to, all that we can have access to, compared to what has existed, does exist and will exist is effectively nothing. That bit is still enough for our purposes, but I’d like some suggestions as to what everything else (effectively everything there is) is for.

It wasn’t made for us, but now we can grasp the possibility of its existence.

It certainly *does *sound like it was made for us then, yeah?

We can try to apprehend the magnitude of the Numinous by contemplating the
fact that there have been an infinity of these places built that we could never even see in the first place. In someone else’s observable universe. Not ours. Not ever. Literally impossible.

Made by something even Greater than the Multiverse.

Sounds like a magnificently profound way to examine the Numinous.

And even though you Yanks do make exceptionally good beers, I’ll have a glass of Pinot Grigio if you have one open.

Really? I am pleasantly surprised that I was wrong about you. I would have guessed that you were beer over wine.

 

[PRmerger]

Really? Less evidence?
Well, you certainly don’t have people dying for the notion of the multiverse… but that human willingness to die for a belief is no evidence for whatever is being believed in.

Nonsequitur, poca.

This is like saying that the analogy of a Christmas tree to an earlobe is false because earlobes have cartilage and Christmas trees don’t.

But no one can deny that Christmas tree : ornament :: earlobe : earring is an incontrovertibly true analogy.

 

[PRmerger]

The God hypothesis requires the pre-existing consciousness.

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

You simply have no idea about the arguments for God’s existence, poca.

Let me assure you that the God hypothesis requires no such thing.

We start from scratch, examine the arguments, and then come to the logical conclusion.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, allow me to take out the points re self-control. I shouldn’t have put those in as they detract from the point I was making. Which was that a belief in a God is just that. Go no further and one is a Deist.

Sure. Let’s just go with Deism.

We can discuss why you reject Deism.

That is, the God of the Philosophers.

Something created everything? Well, OK, that sounds kinda reasonable. We live in a Goldilocks universe – everything is just right for us? Well, that’s sounds OK (bear in mind I’m using these as examples). So…I guess I could believe in God. Yaaay, Bradski’s a Christian!

Bradski’s a Deist now.

Not a Christian.

Yet.

You can’t go from 2+2= 4 to Calculus.

You can’t go from: See Dick. See Jane. See Dick and Jane run.
To this: w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor.html

Well hang on, let’s back the truck up a little. Because now everyone who has a religion wants a piece of the action. And we’re back to the very reasonable argument that at best, only one of them has got it right and even then there is no guarantee that the one that comes closest to the pin has got it all right. It becomes like a fight between political parties to get your membership. Except that unless you believe every single policy that they put forward, you can’t be a member. You have to believe it ALL.

True.

But, again, that’s some great discussions for future…

We can’t get there until you concede God’s existence.

 

[PRmerger]

You have it backwards. If you believe it is true, then it‘s a given that you believe ‘all that’. But if you don’t believe ‘all that’ (and you have to believe it all), then it’s not true.

No, Bradski.

This is absolutely wrong. Your model isn’t what’s happening.

You’ve said that you can’t believe in God because you don’t want to have to believe or do all the things that come with a belief in God.

That’s an example of the model I gave: you reject Fact A because it necessarily means Fact B, C and D, even though you believe Fact A might be actually true.

That’s intellectually dishonest.

Incidentally, there are many, many atheists who believe Fact B, C or D but don’t necessarily believe Fact A.

Or, to not be so obscure–

You reject belief in God because it means that you have to believe (for example) abortion is wrong, homosexual marriage is wrong.

But there are many atheists who believe abortion is wrong without it necessarily meaning they must believe in God.

And there are many atheists who believe homosexual marriage is wrong without it necessarily meaning they must believe in God

So that in itself proves your model wrong.

You have to go through the process of deciding if the evidence for each aspect of the whole thing is acceptable.

Yep.

The alternative would be for me to say that, yes, I will accept it as being true and will THEREFORE accept all the evidence.

I don’t understand what you mean here.

Can you be more concrete?

 

[Bradski]

Like what?

Other things that can’t be falsified? Let me check…

But, then, that means that you can’t reject religion because it can’t be falsified and it can’t be tested.

There you go (although I think you meant God as I’m pretty certain that religion exists).

But then you’d have to embrace the prevailing view that God exists (despite no empirical evidence). Or, at least, not reject the view that God exists because there’s no empirical evidence.

No. I don’t embrace the concept of God for all sorts of reasons, not just because He can’t be proven. One cannot disprove God, so you can’t not believe in Him on that basis. And going back to the difference…

Following the logic of the possibility of the multiverse and using reason to come to a decision (hey, it looks like it’s a distinct possibility), is relatively straightforward. You can let someone else do the physics and the maths and the modelling and if everyone whose pay grade is sufficient agrees that, yes, that sounds reasonable, then you can get to a point where there is some degree of certainty. Compare it to global warming. One doesn’t need to be a meteorologist to come to the conclusion that it’s a fact (this compares only as far as inflation, not the multiverse itself).

Once that point is reached, there is then conjecture about what has already been agreed could mean. It gets a little fuzzy there, but that’s OK as far as science goes. But as far as God goes, as I said, it’s all or nothing. There are too many boxes to be ticked and if one remains unticked, then that’s the end of it.

And as regards the totality of everything not actually being made for us, consider another analogy.

B: I’ve made something for you. It’s behind that wall.
P: Great, let’s go get it.
B: Ah, you can’t. Not possible.
P: Can I see it?
B: Nope. Sorry.
P: Well, OK, what is it?
B: Well, I can’t tell you that either.
P: Hmmm. Okey Dokey. So what does it do?
B: Effectively nothing.
P: Well, it can’t be very big.
B: No, it’s actually more than everything you have.

Tell me that’s not completely illogical.

I am pleasantly surprised that I was wrong about you. I would have guessed that you were beer over wine.

Depends which is opened first. I almost certainly drink too much of both (let’s not mention whisky, shall we?).

 

[Bradski]

You’ve said that you can’t believe in God because you don’t want to have to believe or do all the things that come with a belief in God.

No, I’m not being clear enough. I’m saying that you have to believe all the things associated with God before you can believe in Him (not including homosexuality or gay marriage). I can’t say I believe in Him if I don’t think he created everything. I can’t if I don’t believe in a soul. If I don’t believe in the resurrection, or heaven or a virgin birth, or miracles or the Holy Spirit. And that’s discounting all what I might call circumstantial evidence – saints dying for Him, 500 witnesses, verbatim accounts of the dead being raised. The more you throw into the mix, the more there one is expected to believe (and I don’t believe any of it).

You reject belief in God because it means that you have to believe (for example) abortion is wrong, homosexual marriage is wrong.

Good Lord, no. If I had some epiphany on the way home tonight and I discovered God, then I’m afraid Catholicism wouldn’t get a look in. My views on abortion and gay marriage wouldn’t change. I simply argue that you are misinterpreting what God expects.

I don’t understand what you mean here. Can you be more concrete?

If I can’t accept all those things I listed above (and more) I would not be able to believe in God. If I said I did believe in Him, then I would be saying that I believe in Him and THEREFORE I have to accept them. That’s not the way to do things. You go where the evidence leads you.

You don’t take that, how shall I say, leap of faith and then go back to re-evaluate the evidence on that basis. Well, I don’t. It’s impossible for me to do it.

 

[Nixbits]

PRmerger:

And what is it that you’re referencing here, vis a vis our discussion on religion?

You seem to have forgotten what we were debating, which makes me think that I’ve been wasting my time. sigh

Let me refresh your memory. Pocaracas suggested that, if we all had a relationship with God in the same way that we can have a relationship with our spouse, a neighbour, or the woman that works in the local shop, then we would not need organised religion as it exists today. I agreed with him. You disagreed with us.

 

[Bradski]

You seem to have forgotten what we were debating, which makes me think that I’ve been wasting my time. sigh

Let me refresh your memory. Pocaracas suggested that, if we all had a relationship with God in the same way that we can have a relationship with our spouse, a neighbour, or the woman that works in the local shop, then we would not need organised religion as it exists today. I agreed with him. You disagreed with us.

Not that I’m disagreeing with you, but how would everyone know it was the same God? If He actually told us in some way so that we’d all believe Him, then badda bing, no religion and no atheists and everyone lives happily ever after.

 

[Nixbits]

Bradski, I’m not sure that we could all know for certain it was the same God. But, let’s consider the hypothetical situation that I (thought I) was debating with PRmerger.

If we had shared experiences of directly interacting with God, individually, at small meetings and at huge gatherings (held at Wembley Stadium or Sydney Opera House, for example) and the experiences were consistent from one person to the next and the message received was consistent from one meeting to another, then that would lead most people to tentatively accept that everyone was interacting with the same God.

That might not approach ‘certainty’, but for most it would be certain enough, I think. Note that I’m not attempting to show how this supposed God would prove to everyone that He was God. I’m only suggesting that, given that we believed that this was God, we could have a shared direct relationship with Him without the need for organised religion as we know it today.

 

[PRmerger]

Let me refresh your memory. Pocaracas suggested that, if we all had a relationship with God in the same way that we can have a relationship with our spouse, a neighbour, or the woman that works in the local shop, then we would not need organised religion as it exists today. I agreed with him. You disagreed with us.

What does that have to do with an intermediary?

Please explain your objection to me.

Children are analogous to what in religion?

 

[pocaracas]

It is not as much work, as you seem to think. And it would be pretty useful - as it would force you to think about the argument.

Also, you can save some time by “taking a day off” from answering in this thread, just as I did.

Of course, I suspect that the main problem is that you do not have an argument you could present in that way (that wouldn’t look very bad)… But that’s what this “exercise” is actually meant to detect…

It’ll have to wait for next weekend, then… too much work to do at the moment and I’m not sure I can think properly at night.
Remind me!

I have to say I can see no difference here… That “as much as” seems to be equivalent of “indistinguishable”…

“as much as” refers to a quantity.
“indistinguishable” refers to quality… similarity.

e.g.
There are as many girls over there as I have wives.
That girl there is indistinguishable from my wife.

But perhaps I’m doing “English language” wrong… wouldn’t be the first time…

“It makes sense”? You have no actual stories, but just think they are not impossible? So, now evidence you made up is supposed to be “indistinguishable” from evidence that actually exists?

And are you also claiming that merely “suffering a penalty” is “indistinguishable” from actual martyrdom?

Sorry, but that looks rather unpersuasive and thus my point still stands - any martyrdom of any religion is an example of evidence easily distinguishable from evidence for imaginary friends.

I’m sorry?.. I have no stories?
St. Peter’s story - the guy went as far as want to die in an inverted cross.

9-11 Muslim martyrs - die steering airplanes into buildings.

At least one of these two stories relies on people being convinced of something that’s false and dying for it.
Martyrdom is no evidence for anything, except that people die for their own beliefs. Didn’t I say this already?

That would be equivocation. “Exists in the intellect” doesn’t count here, as it wasn’t meant to end up in the conclusion.

Good to know!

I wonder how you define those “imaginary friends”, for I don’t think all those “figures invented by a mind” are going to fit into that group…

Indeed they do not.
I just wanted to leave those “figures invented by a mind” as clearly out of the realm of our discussion.

I was trying to rewrite your argument, and that argument didn’t get to the actual conclusion you had to reach.

And that’s the problem. You do not have a good argument, and bad arguments put in such form end up looking very bad.

Which, of course, is why I am insisting you would present your arguments in such way.

It’s probably just going to be a huge list of things… which I’ll shorten in a brutal way (my style) and end up with something that’s full of holes.
Anyway, next weekend, I’ll try to draft it out, with references to studies so that the premises, at least, have some solid foundation.

Um, it is an argument you gave, just reworded. Thus, wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that you’re missing premises…?

Of course, all that doesn’t have to matter - just tell us what those missing premises are.

Perhaps the rewording discarded those extra premises? Or maybe I was implying them?
Or maybe… just maybe… I wasn’t making a full argument in a few lines, but a continuation of a conversation, assuming that past things told during this conversation were also part of those premises.

You know, you have yet to explain what you mean by those “known, scientifically known, flaws in human psychology” and “psychology exploiting methodology”…

For now I guess that I managed to find out such claimed “features”:

1. 
   *]Teaching the kids.
   *]Use of authority that cannot be verified by the ones who end up believing.
   *]Reliance on good feelings.
   
   Reading or writing fits the first “feature”, but you do not reject them. Four examples from science (heliocentrism etc.) fit the second “feature”, but you do not reject them. And Catholicism doesn’t even care much about “good feelings”, even if there are religions (like Mormonism) that might.
   
   And then you try to give answers. You answer the first counterexample with claim that writing is useful - but how can it matter, if the objection was not “Religion is useless.”? You answer the second counterexample by claim that science experiments are repeatable - but how can it matter, if the objection talks only about things verifiable by the ones being persuaded? And you didn’t answer the point about “good feelings” at all.
   
   So, those are not features you are really objecting to. So, what are they?

1. 
   Perhaps, I was going further… here’s a few that are being applied to the business world: businessinsider.com/cognitive-biases-that-affect-decisions-2015-8
   
   They work the same for religion.
   And yes, childhood indoctrination is also one such exploitation. Which kid is going to defy the unfalsifiable teachings of their authority figures?
   

   Repetition does not make things any more relevant.

   Everything is relevant.
   (except that which is irrelevant )

 

[pocaracas]

And perhaps it has only evolved enough to get you to believe that it has “evolved enough”…?

Still better than no evolution in that direction, I think…

Are you sure it was intuition? It is easy to see some traces of an argument here (although it would mention evolution - and that’s a topic that is to be avoided)…

And, of course, hasty generalisation from a single example is also how such fads rise as well… Someone ate something and didn’t get sick. See? It also “works”! Why refuse something that “works”?

That works too… on a different level, from what I made work… so both may be right.

You were asking about just 2 (two). If you really want an answer, investigate them. If you do not want an answer, why are you asking?

Oh… you think this is about the distinction between Islam and Catholicism?.. it goes further… supposing one accepts a creator god, there are still many possibilities at how this creator god is, how he desires us to act, and how he has set up any form of afterlife.

But, from the harsh reality in plain sight, my first guess would be:

• He’s not around.
• He wants us to just survive to the best of our abilities - that should include taking care of our home, the planet.
• If there’s some afterlife, there doesn’t seem to be any way of getting info from there to here, so… how did anyone arrive at any description of such an afterlife?

You can read without agreeing, if you are interested in the argument. Hopefully, you are doing that in this thread.

I can… but it’s not the same thing.

I hope you had fun.

I did!

Actual definition of a miracle by St. Thomas Aquinas (“Summa Theologica”, First Part, Question 105, Article 7 - newadvent.org/summa/1105.htm): “Wherefore those things which God does outside those causes which we know, are called miracles.”.

As you can see, it is not “magic done by a god”. And now - to spoil that fun a little… So, how do you define that “magic”, and how do you know it (and miracles) does not exist? After all, you seem to be so sure here…

Hmm… yeah, magic is that which defies physical causality, or conservation of all the physical properties which are generally conserved… mainly energy.
It has always baffled me where the energy comes from for telekinesis, or transformation from one animal to another, or invisibility… the standard magical abilities from fiction… they all baffle me.
More so when we are just talking about “super-heroes” and instead of a fictional world where magic exists… Where does the energy to power the Hulk, or the Flash, or superman come from?

Anyway, how can I be sure that it doesn’t exist?.. I’m not.
I’d really like it to exist. I’d be a prime candidate to become indoctrinated into belief in magic…
But I haven’t seen any magic in this world… I have seen no reports by others claiming to have seen such magic… well, no credible reports.
Some people still try to sell cheap tricks as magic (yogicmiracle.blogspot.pt/2009/03/indian-yogi-subbayah-pullavars.html) and some people still fall for them… and report back that they saw real magic being done with their own eyes, and then that story gets passed on as completely true. The many many charlatans leave a diminished likelihood that actual magic is possible.

No, in that case the most you could argue is that an idea (that does exist) has some consequences.

I think it comes down to the same, but ok. An idea has consequences in the physical macroscopic world.

Are you asking if a book is a possibility?

The idea in the book.

For that matter, why should I care if whatever you are really asking about is “a possibility”? What does that have to do with this discussion?

If an alternative explanation or reasoning for Step I is found, then all that follows can be brought into question.

You have already conceded that without logic there is nothing you can “reason out”.

Again, this is an alternative stopping point for Step I. If we can’t “reason out” anything, then no philosophizing can peer into that event that brought forth the big bang singularity.

Nobody dismisses the evidence. It is recorded.

The evidence from those past scientific experiments is never dismissed. It is recorded so we can look at them again and do our own analysis… or to compare against novel methods of gathering the same kind of data.

When the basic premise is itself an unknown… what did you expect?

The basic premise: God exists.
This is not known, it is believed (by some).
The unknowns count against Catholicism because one of those unknowns is also its basic premise.
In science, there are questions that are yet unanswered, but the basic premises stand… observation, hypothesis, testing. Whatever comes out, comes out. If it’s wrong, it’s wrong… if it seems right, as long as it can withstand testing, remains as scientific knowledge.

 

[pocaracas]

Nonsequitur, poca.

This is like saying that the analogy of a Christmas tree to an earlobe is false because earlobes have cartilage and Christmas trees don’t.

But no one can deny that Christmas tree : ornament :: earlobe : earring is an incontrovertibly true analogy.

Oh… I’m sorry, I was just trying to use the evidence that you or MPat had used before…

Care to share the extra evidence that exists for God and not for the multiverse?

 

[pocaracas]

You simply have no idea about the arguments for God’s existence, poca.

Let me assure you that the God hypothesis requires no such thing.

We start from scratch, examine the arguments, and then come to the logical conclusion.

No consciousness pre-existing to the Universe?

That’s not what I’ve been reading till now…

 

[eddie_too]

without faith in Jesus Christ, there is no hope.

thus, those who deny the truth that is Jesus Christ live lives without hope.

without faith in Jesus Christ, a person is left with only finite and imperfect love.

thus, those who deny the truth that is Jesus Christ live lives deprived of infinite and perfect love.

without faith in Jesus Christ, a person is incapable of knowing the true nature of God.

thus, those who deny the truth that is Jesus Christ, live a life ignorant of the glories of God.

without faith in Jesus Christ, a person cannot possess the knowledge, understanding and wisdom available to us as gifts of the Holy Spirit.

thus, those who deny the truth that is Jesus Christ are pitiable because they live lives full of despair, empty of perfect love, enslaved to ignorance and confusion. these are the ones who spend hours, weeks, months and even years vainly demanding God prove Himself to them. I say vainly demanding because all that God has already provided they refuse to accept.

 

[pocaracas]

Hello eddie too!

without faith in Jesus Christ, there is no hope.

thus, those who deny the truth that is Jesus Christ live lives without hope.

How so?
This seems very ad hoc.
I’m pretty sure I have hope… and I have no faith in Jesus Christ. How does that work, then?

without faith in Jesus Christ, a person is left with only finite and imperfect love.

thus, those who deny the truth that is Jesus Christ live lives deprived of infinite and perfect love.

Is there an infinite and perfect love? Is that possible?
How can you tell those things you describe as “infinite and perfect love” are finite representations in your mortal mind?

without faith in Jesus Christ, a person is incapable of knowing the true nature of God.

thus, those who deny the truth that is Jesus Christ, live a life ignorant of the glories of God.

I fail to understand why faith is a requirement.
What’s wrong about actually getting some first-hand information on God and His nature?

without faith in Jesus Christ, a person cannot possess the knowledge, understanding and wisdom available to us as gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Why?
Doesn’t the story claim that the Holy Spirit a different person from Jesus Christ?
Can’t we know the things from one without having the things from the other?

thus, those who deny the truth that is Jesus Christ are pitiable because they live lives full of despair, empty of perfect love, enslaved to ignorance and confusion. these are the ones who spend hours, weeks, months and even years vainly demanding God prove Himself to them. I say vainly demanding because all that God has already provided they refuse to accept.

Wow… thanks a lot…
It seems my happy, fulfilled, calm, nice, patient, kind, loving, scientific and understanding life is flying in the face of what you said…
Something seems wrong…