The Theist Position

[MPat]

The religion is, obviously I would have thought, Chritianity.

And which kind of Christianity? Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, some sort of Protestant?

I’m not sure that a Hindu or Native American would claim that his/her personal God was the same as yours. They would be (and certainly are) completely different. Unless you think that Shiva, for example, is God in another form.

I never included Buddhism because it has no personal god.

The fact that Islam and Christianity share the same personal God does not make the statement ‘All religions have their own personal God’ incorrect.

So, we see that things are far too complicated for a simple claim like this:

All religions have their own personal God. Which you would reject because you would claim that yours is the true God.

As you can see, if you take “own personal God”, religions are not always mutually exclusive, there’s overlap and “potential overlap” etc.

Now, it would be easy to correct your claim to actually get something to be mutually exclusive: “religious views” can be mutually exclusive.

But, of course, “religious views” include atheism, and you want to hide the fact that you want special pleading giving atheism a privileged position.

I have a life. I have obligations. I had plans for the weekend (spiritual retreat) and had committments to fulfil towards that and my family. So I don’t have time to put my life on hold and spend time

I thought it comes without saying that such requests are not supposed to be met right away. It’s a forum, not a chat.

finding links to satisfy a stranger online who is trying to prove that I’m ignorant.

The fact that you are ignorant in this matter is already clear: if non-Christian miracle claims were as common, as you need, and you knew enough of them, it would have been easy to cite them (just like “Fatima, Miracle of the Sun” - that took me next to no time and effort).

Now it would be nice if that was corrected either by you learning a bit more, or by you acknowledging your ignorance on the matter and avoiding making strong claims that would require more knowledge.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

The religion is, obviously I would have thought, Chritianity.

And which kind of Christianity? Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, some sort of Protestant?

I’m not sure that a Hindu or Native American would claim that his/her personal God was the same as yours. They would be (and certainly are) completely different. Unless you think that Shiva, for example, is God in another form.

I never included Buddhism because it has no personal god.

The fact that Islam and Christianity share the same personal God does not make the statement ‘All religions have their own personal God’ incorrect.

So, we see that things are far too complicated for a simple claim like this:

All religions have their own personal God. Which you would reject because you would claim that yours is the true God.

As you can see, if you take “own personal God”, religions are not always mutually exclusive, there’s overlap and “potential overlap” etc.

Now, it would be easy to correct your claim to actually get something to be mutually exclusive: “religious views” can be mutually exclusive.

But, of course, “religious views” include atheism, and you want to hide the fact that you want special pleading giving atheism a privileged position.

What the…? What on earth does it matter which version of Christianity? We are talking about a personal God. Are you suggesting that Catholic or Eatern Orthodox don’t consider God to be personal?

And all religions have their personal gods. And some share the same ones. Are you making a point or simply pointing out the obvious?

And atheism does not hold a privileged position.

If you have any points to make then please make them. Otherwise we are done.

 

[MPat]

What the…? What on earth does it matter which version of Christianity? We are talking about a personal God. Are you suggesting that Catholic or Eatern Orthodox don’t consider God to be personal?

Well, if the fact that you was a Christian among Christians was important enough to introduce, then, presumably, the fact of belonging to, let’s say, some specific Protestant denomination is also important.

Not to mention that it might indicate more about that “testimony of others”. For example, if you were a Catholic, it might be reasonable to expect that this testimony included reports of Marian apparitions. If, on the other hand, you had been a Pentecostal, it might be reasonable to expect talk about “speaking in tongues”.

And it might be that you mostly expect the same kind of evidence even now.

But, of course, if you do not want to give this information (for example, thinking that it makes it too easy to deduce your real-world identity), that’s fine.

And all religions have their personal gods.

I never included Buddhism because it has no personal god.

Since Buddhism is obviously a religion, we have a clear self-contradiction here.

And atheism does not hold a privileged position.

It does not. But your argument needs to make it look as if atheism was privileged, “default”, something to fall back if one can’t choose among the many religions.

Otherwise the most you can get from it is that you are supposed to go to church one week, to synagogue the next one, to mosque the third one…

 

[Bradskii]

Not much to respond to there. But maybe we should ask a Buddhist (@rossum) about whether it’s a religion.

 

[rossum]

Not much to respond to there. But maybe we should ask a Buddhist (@rossum) about whether it’s a religion.

Yes Buddhism is a religion. It has gods (lots of them) but none of the gods are important. If you want to win the lottery then a god might be able to help you. If you want to attain nirvana, then the Buddha is a lot more useful than any god.

Another non-standard characteristic of Buddhism is that is denies all forms of a soul. What we think is our soul isn’t. It is just an illusion we have to get rid of.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Not much to respond to there. But maybe we should ask a Buddhist (@rossum) about whether it’s a religion.

Yes Buddhism is a religion. It has gods (lots of them) but none of the gods are important. If you want to win the lottery then a god might be able to help you. If you want to attain nirvana, then the Buddha is a lot more useful than any god.

Another non-standard characteristic of Buddhism is that is denies all forms of a soul. What we think is our soul isn’t. It is just an illusion we have to get rid of.

So hey, not just a personal god but one for all contingencies. I guess if you want to win the lottery then Pascal’s Wager might come in useful.

 

[JosephJohn]

Fair enough that I did. My point is that atheism has to answer what fundamental principle we should place our ultimate trust in and base the rest of our knowledge on. What one axiom we simply cannot abandon. So unless we disagree on that premise I’m asking what you know base your beliefs on. I’m arguing that you ought to call that thing a god or a religion. Now I’m clearly Catholic and is prefer that Christ fill that spot but I think if all people can acknowledge the logical need for such a thing we can at least have similar terms to use in this debate and can speak much more respectfully and civilly with one another to find the Truth. That’s not to say you’ve been anything but respectful though. I really appreciate you having this conversation at all.

For what’s its worth- I was a Catholic before I basically grew completely lukewarm or straight up agnostic/quasi-nihilistic. I might have been exactly where you are but you are right that I should presume that.

 

[niceatheist]

The only firm foundation I have is that the Universe exists. How it came into existence, or whether or not that’s even a sensible question, is something I do not pretend to have any knowledge of. What I do know is that everyone from mathematicians and scientists who invoke explanations like M-theory or a zero energy universe don’t know the actual answer any better than Aristotle or Thomas Aquinas did, or any modern philosopher.

 

[JosephJohn]

Ok so just like us your one an only axiom is that there is an existence. We also believe that thing is a conscious powerful thing which appropriate calls himself “I Am” but indeed the only base reality to be certain of us that existence itself is and is without a cause. (We also confess we know almost nothing about God except that he is omni-. These points are usually hang ups for atheists but it’s should be clear that the truth of existence has infinite leverage over reality in any condition at all. And by our definition of love it is a omnibenevolent principle as well)

As for the theories to explain why things exist. Don’t you then have to either say that those premise are self causing “gods” or find an explanation for them. This might seem self evident but it’s not clear whether math is invented to explain truth or whether it is discovered. Is math a god in itself? Is math a thought in the mind of God- a though so ancient it seeks self evident? I find those theories so interesting because they actually get so close to saying math itself- a small part of Truth- is the means by which the universe is allowed to exist by the fundamental principle of being.

Christ indeed claims to be Truth itself and his claim is true. These hypothesis are not only compatible with Christianity they are almost perfectly Christian in nature. (In the opinion of one extremely amateur student of physics and philosophy. I’m sure a more comprehensively informed person might have more to say here)

 

[abucs]

his is a fallcy:

A particularly famous example is the 1998 Weizmann experiment.[1] Despite the “observer” in this experiment being an electronic detector—possibly due to the assumption that the word “observer” implies a person—its results have led to the popular belief that a conscious mind can directly affect reality.[2] The need for the “observer” to be conscious has been rejected by mainstream science as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process,[3][4][5] apparently being the generation of information at its most basic level that produces the effect.

You are copy / pasting from Wikipedia but you are not understanding the argument.
Please reread the whole article again.

There are some that believe it is consciousness that ‘collapses the wave function’ or creates reality. This is separate to what I have been saying that reality was programmed for consciousness.

In both cases consciousness is involved in the process. Your stated experiment is used to argue against the first hypothesis but that hypothesis is not what I have been talking about.

In fact my words and examples of computer programs clearly refer to the second stated hypothesis. My words were that physical reality is dependent on what a conscious observer can know or potentially know. This is congruent with your articles use of the word ‘information’. If information can be created and it can be, or potentially can be interpreted by a conscious being then this will have a direct influence on the laws of physics. Or to put it the correct way, the physical law is programmed for consciousness.

It is not our consciousness that creates reality but reality has been programmed for consciousness. Thus a programmer with consciousness is the most rational explanation. i.e. God.

(Our good computer simulation games if programmed well work on the same principle. I can explain more about this if you like).

 

[abucs]

But we aren’t talking about a sense of the divine. Everyone has that. We are talking about a personal God. The Abrahamic God. A God that is specifically concerned about you and may well answer your prayers. A God that will offer you the keys to His kingdom. A God that sent His son to atone for your sins.

All religions have their own personal God. Which you would reject because you would claim that yours is the true God.

I was in Bali recently……………

Their religion seems more relevant to them than does Christianity in the west. It seems more natural. And that’s just one of dozens. Of which I know very little. So my disbelief for theirs is lagging slightly behind Christianity.

And that’s because the more I found out about God, the less I believed.

No we are talking about God. Or a being with intelligence who created our reality. The tool of science is used for this question. The question of how much this Being cares for us or whether this being is the Christian interpretation of God is a separate question outside the realm of science.

I have been to Bali 2 or 3 times also. We have to be precise in what we mean by God. My use of the word refers to the creator of our reality. Now in Bali or other places if there is a belief that Beings live in lakes or trees or statues and have some limited powers then this is not really God even though we are used to using the same language to describe two different things. Thor and Zeus are also not strictly God because the definition of them is not that they created our reality but they themselves were created within our reality.

Because God in the Christian sense is the Creator of our reality than we can intelligently investigate that hypothesis because we can interrogate through science the physical reality or natural order. From our interrogations we can argue one way or the other whether an intelligence was likely involved in that reality.

For Thor or Zeus or a god of the lake we cannot do that because basically when we are saying ‘god’ in those contexts we are not talking about the Creator of our reality. If Zeus was thought of differently. If he were thought of as the Creator of our reality then this would simply be God and this God hypothesis can be discussed through the study of the natural order.

But arguing how he has related to humanity in certain ways is largely beyond science. Those two arguments would be separate. The same as for the ‘Abrahamic’ claims of God.

We can intelligently discuss if a Creator God is the best answer to the question ‘what is our reality’. What He said or did to whom thousands of years ago is a separate question that science usually is not equipped to answer.

Thus we are talking about a Creator of our reality when we talk about God. All other questions are not scientific questions but reasoning, logic and faith questions,

 

[Bradskii]

As in Shiva for example.

 

[abucs]

If Shiva is said to be the Creator of our reality then yes. This would be God in the Christian sense. The scientific investigation sheds light on whether an intelligent Creator is the most rational answer.

Claims of what this Creator did on earth are separate questions.

 

[Bradskii]

If Shiva is said to be the Creator of our reality then yes. This would be God in the Christian sense. The scientific investigation sheds light on whether an intelligent Creator is the most rational answer.

Claims of what this Creator did on earth are separate questions.

They are not separate questions. That is the question. I’ve been trying to point out that other regions have personal gods but you claimed that they had to have created everything as well. Hence Shiva.

 

[abucs]

They are not separate questions. That is the question. I’ve been trying to point out that other regions have personal gods but you claimed that they had to have created everything as well. Hence Shiva.

I am saying that science can address the question of God in the Christian sense as the Being who created the natural order.

This is what can be discussed scientifically rather than whether he came to earth 300 years ago and wore blue underpants and had poached eggs for breakfast on a certain Tuesday.

We cannot intelligently discuss that with a level (though not complete) of surety as whether it is likely a Creator is responsible for our realty.

We can access our reality. We can’t access Tuesday of 300 years ago.

 

[Bradskii]

It is not our consciousness that creates reality but reality has been programmed for consciousness.

Just either/or? Seems a limited choice. When the most obvious one is that reality exists in its own right and we have evolved to experience it.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

They are not separate questions. That is the question. I’ve been trying to point out that other regions have personal gods but you claimed that they had to have created everything as well. Hence Shiva.

I am saying that science can address the question of God in the Christian sense as the Being who created the natural order.

So you must include Shiva and any other deity which is claimed to have created the universe.

 

[abucs]

Just either/or? Seems a limited choice.

They are two hypothesis for how consciousness is fundamentally involved with our reality. It was not meant to be exhaustive of all possibilities.

When the most obvious one is that reality exists in its own right and we have evolved to experience it.

I disagree but again to go back to the original discussion, the onus is on you to make that case.

 

[abucs]

So you must include Shiva and any other deity which is claimed to have created the universe.

Yes of course. But in the sense of Creating our reality, because this was only done once, we are talking about the same Deity that is given different names by different groups.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Just either/or? Seems a limited choice.

They are two hypothesis for how consciousness is fundamentally involved with our reality. It was not meant to be exhaustive of all possibilities.

When the most obvious one is that reality exists in its own right and we have evolved to experience it.

I disagree but again to go back to the original discussion, the onus is on you to make that case.

1. Reality exists.
2. We can experience it.
3. We are evolved creatures.
4. Two and three align perfectly.

If we say that consciousness is the experience of reality then there is a continuum of the levels of consciousness from bacteria up to man. That exists even now. It is therefore apparent that consciousness is an evolved characteristic that enables life to interact with reality and better survive.