Who am I? Why am I here?

[EnterTheBowser]

RyanL:

This seems like an awfully dogmatic statement. Are you willing to concede that you are the dogmatist here?

Same comment.

You’re right; I should modify my original statement to restrict it to current evidence and theistic arguments I am aware of.

I have never seen this demonstrated successfully - I have only seen shallow reasoning and childish arguments. I look forward to seeing what you bring to the table, and hope it’s not of the same caliber.

Just as a quick question: are you familar with the arguments from divine hiddennes, nonbelief, and physical minds?

Pascal would disagree with you for similar reasons.

…

I will confidently assert that Pascal’s Wager is a really bad argument. In a sense, it can be used to show that it is reasonable to believe in everything. Watch:

Imagine that God, instead of demanding acknowledgment of his existence as a condition of infinite reward, demands that we acknowledge proposition X as true. It is possible that such a God exists - basically, some creature capable of dealing out infinite reward (and perhaps infinite punishment) in exchange for belief in some proposition. The problem is that I can put in any statement for X. And so, if Pascal’s Wager is a good argument, it is reasonable to believe that the Sun is an orange, that the sun is not an orange, and so forth - every statement, and its negation. So there seems to be problems. Now, it might be replied that I can only stick in statements for X of which we are not entirely sure - but in reality, all knowledge is, to some extent or another, doubtful - or at least enough knowledge is that this modified Wager would declare it reasonable to believe in A and ~A, for some A or other.

For a more amusing yet equally serious response to the Wager, read this:

infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/heaven.html

 

[Maranatha]

Sparetherod:

Evidence forces me to believe something until better evidence forces me to change my mind. Can I really choose to believe something contrary to the evidence? Is this what you’re talking about here?

Would you accept circumstantial evidence if that were the best evidence available?

 

[Maranatha]

RyanL:

I think what’s being asked here is if you understand that if you are given logically undeniable proof beyond any rational questioning, free will has been removed. For example: do you believe in the Sun? Why? Because there is logically undeniable proof of its existance. Questioning the existance of the Sun is unreasonable, and therefore you don’t have a proper “choice”. Free will has effectively been removed.

Thanks Ryan, That’s exactly what I was getting at.

 

[Maranatha]

EnterTheBowser:

I will confidently assert that Pascal’s Wager is a really bad argument. In a sense, it can be used to show that it is reasonable to believe in everything.

Pascal’s Wager is not an argument but a reason to accept belief. That’s why is called a Wager and not an argument.

Most of the arguments for the existence of God do raise to the level of a proof from a logistical point of view. Of the arguments against, only one raises to the level of proof. With the preponderance of the evidence in favor of God’s existence, one can reasonably conclude God exists.

What is the standard for this reason? On the spectrum of reasonableness we have superstition on one end of the spectrum and hyper-rationalism on the other end of the spectrum. In the center is balanced moderate reasonableness.

Superstition, condemned by the Catholic Church BTW, causes belief without any proof. This is obviously irrational.

Hyper-rationalism, on the other end of the spectrum, demands incontrovertible proof. This may even extend to proof for the existence of reality. This, IMHO, is also irrational.

Orthodox Judaism was the first to reconcile the two extremes and come to a balanced conclusion. Orthodox Christianity continued that tradition.

 

[Sparetherod]

Maranatha Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanL
I think what’s being asked here is if you understand that if you are given logically undeniable proof beyond any rational questioning, free will has been removed. For example: do you believe in the Sun? Why? Because there is logically undeniable proof of its existance. Questioning the existance of the Sun is unreasonable, and therefore you don’t have a proper “choice”. Free will has effectively been removed.

Thanks Ryan, That’s exactly what I was getting at.

I agree, I do not have a rational choice to deny the obvious. Does that somehow leave my life lacking?

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Maranatha:

Pascal’s Wager is not an argument but a reason to accept belief. That’s why is called a Wager and not an argument.

And yet it seems that one can use Pascal’s Wager - well, a modified version - as a reason to accept contradictory beliefs.

Most of the arguments for the existence of God do raise to the level of a proof from a logistical point of view. Of the arguments against, only one raises to the level of proof. With the preponderance of the evidence in favor of God’s existence, one can reasonably conclude God exists.

…

I do not think that word [logistical] means what you think it means. That aside, I will agree with you that we are asking: what is the reasonable belief regarding God?

 

[EnterTheBowser]

tdandh26:

EntertheBowser,
What is truth, how do you define it? Is it not an immaterial thing, PLP has stated that he does not hold to any set standard of truth and basically truth is what we make it.

…

I think that I am most concerned with which beliefs it is reasonable to hold. What “reasonable” means is something I could not precisely define without some reflection (recall that famous guy who said “I am sure I know what time is, but if someone asks me what time is, I could not tell him”), though I think it’s generally well-understood.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Anonymous_1:

because humans have an inherent need to believe they are generally good, and worth something…

to discount the existence of life or existence here after, or a Creator who created me and loves me is to say that life and my life is merley a flash of light seperating the eternity before my first breath and that proceding my last. It is to say everything I do is essentially meaningless, and that I as a human being have no inherrent worth. Good for the self esteem.

…

I think it is rather silly to say that because we will all die eventually, the things we do have no meaning. This is probably simplistic, but: if a finite amount of a thing is meaningless, then endless amounts of it are similarly meaningless. Life is like food - just because the meal is gone when we’re finished doesn’t mean it didn’t taste good while we’re eating it (thank you, Anne Pitlyck!).

 

[Sparetherod]

Pascal’s Wager is not an argument but a reason to accept belief. That’s why is called a Wager and not an argument.

Most of the arguments for the existence of God do raise to the level of a proof from a logistical point of view.

So you say. I’m afraid the arguments don’t work…on me at least. And I would find the effort put into countless hours of angst and ritual to demonstrate belief, to be not worth the effort in hopes of winning the wager.

Superstition, condemned by the Catholic Church BTW, causes belief without any proof. This is obviously irrational.

Moses talked to God. Superstition or Catholic faith? The difference is?

Hyper-rationalism, on the other end of the spectrum, demands incontrovertible proof. This may even extend to proof for the existence of reality. This, IMHO, is also irrational.

You try to define my position as irrational by saying I need proof of reality? If that’s what it takes to make your point, you’re welcome to it. When has relying on good evidence ever let you down?

 

[Sparetherod]

Would you accept circumstantial evidence if that were the best evidence available?

Extreme claims require extreme evidence…circumstantial evidence is not likely to do it , but try me.

If we one day get radio message from Vega that says “This is God speaking”, are you likely to believe it?

 

[tdandh26]

enterthebowser,

That has to be one of the funniest things ive heard in a long time. You base your belief on what is most reasonable to you. Thats it. Thats how I become an athiest. .
Well then, you shouldn’t have a problem with God then eh. Because what is most reasonable to most of the world is that they can continue to exist. Not to mention it seem very unreasonable to assume that thousands and thousands and thousands, of people throughout history have been duped by the same mental ailment. Or that all those guys who came up with this Christianity thing died for it.
According to your reasoning life is the end all be all, so it would be no problem for me to assume that if someone held a knife to your throat and told you to say you believe in God. You would have no problem saying it to save your life. Therefore would it not be reasonable to assume that if those men had conceived this hoax, then when their lives were at stake they would not have retracted their lie. Wow, your own theories as athiests give us Christians reason to celebrate that it must be true what they said.
For if life is all there is, we must do all we can to maintian it. And, if someone dies for what he says either it is absolutely true or they were all of them mad men.

 

[tdandh26]

Hey spare,
I got a wilder one for ya, God actually becoming man to tell us He loves us, and performs miracles to prove it.
Wow.

 

[Sparetherod]

Before I get any further, I just want to let everybody about a spot on C-span Book TV tonight. Sam Harris will be on at 9PM EST. He wrote The End of Faith. I’m sure you will find him interesting.

 

[Sparetherod]

For if life is all there is, we must do all we can to maintian it. And, if someone dies for what he says either it is absolutely true or they were all of them mad men.

Hey, what’s your theory on the whole Jonestown thing?

Not to mention it seem very unreasonable to assume that thousands and thousands and thousands, of people throughout history have been duped by the same mental ailment. Or that all those guys who came up with this Christianity thing died for it

And what was you theory on the Jonestown thing, again?

 

[Sparetherod]

I got a wilder one for ya, God actually becoming man to tell us He loves us, and performs miracles to prove it.

And you got this from a two thousand year old story that nobody else at the time seemed to know about, right?

 

[Sparetherod]

Guys, I will get to the evolution of ethics discussion, tonight.

For now,

Here’s another question: Do you believe that no two snow flakes are alike? Why? Do you have proof to support your conclusion? Do you have free will to choose to believe as you would like? Yes, because you have no logically undeniable proof either way.

Asking me to prove the negative, huh? I can’t prove your unicorns aren’t real, either. I’m just a little sad some might spend so much time worrying about them since the only evidence for them is in old stories written by very superstitious people.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

tdandh26:

…

You base your belief on what is most reasonable to you.

…

As opposed to basing belief on what is unreasonable? That’s not a serious question, but this is: do you feel that there are fairly well-agreed on standards for what constitutes a reasonable belief? There are definitely borderline cases, but do you feel that in general, there are such standards?

Because what is most reasonable to most of the world is that they can continue to exist.

I’m not really sure what you mean by this.

Not to mention it seem very unreasonable to assume that thousands and thousands and thousands, of people throughout history have been duped by the same mental ailment. Or that all those guys who came up with this Christianity thing died for it.

Lord, liar, or lunatic? ; )

In general, I would hold that the reasonableness of a given belief is not, in fact, determined by how many people hold it, but by the reasons for which they hold it. Imagine: if everyone believed the sun was an orange (in the ordinary meaning of “sun” and “orange”) (ceteris paribus), would that make that belief reasonable?

According to your reasoning life is the end all be all, so it would be no problem for me to assume that if someone held a knife to your throat and told you to say you believe in God. You would have no problem saying it to save your life. Therefore would it not be reasonable to assume that if those men had conceived this hoax, then when their lives were at stake they would not have retracted their lie.

…

I think that there are, in fact, problems in your logic. It seems a bit odd to assume that the various factors which motivate my actions would be the same as those for, well, die-hard Christians.

 

[Philthy]

PLP:

I do not believe anything to be true or false with certainty.

That does not inspire confidence! In other words, there is not one thing that you know? Not even that statement?

PLP:

Everything which I believe to be true or believe to be false is subject to revision on a new argument or new evidence.

So do you believe Truth is knowable or not? That would be square one. If not, threads over.

PLP:

I also believe I have an ethical duty to seek the truth.

Thats kinda funny… why? That is quite a burden you have placed on yourself: Truth is not knowable with certainty yet you have a moral obligation to seek it knowing you will not recognized it when confronted by it? Where did that idea come from and what does an ethical duty mean for you as a strong atheist?

PLP:

I will learn more learn more about the truth, learn more about myself and my own ideas by discussing them with the members of this forum. I hope the participants and the readers of our conversations will find the same value as I do, whatever the outcome.

Im sure we will all benefit, and it sounds like fun

I don’t know anything either, except how to type…

Phil

 

[Maranatha]

Sparetherod:

So you say. I’m afraid the arguments don’t work…on me at least. And I would find the effort put into countless hours of angst and ritual to demonstrate belief, to be not worth the effort in hopes of winning the wager.

It not just my position. The proofs of Gods existence conform to he standards of logic. By those standards they rise to the level of proofs.

Moses talked to God. Superstition or Catholic faith? The difference is?

If the supernatural exists then supernatural evens are possible. Based on logic, the proofs show this is most likely. The difference between this an superstition is that superstition does not based on logic.

You try to define my position as irrational by saying I need proof of reality? If that’s what it takes to make your point, you’re welcome to it. When has relying on good evidence ever let you down?

No. I did not define you position. If it looked like it did, I apologise. I tried to defined the spectrum of rationality. By you response, I think you fall on the extreme end of hyper-rationalism just short of the need for the proof of realty. This high level of proof denies circumstantial evidence and demands evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt. This expectation is 1. unreasonably high, IMHO and 2. if given, would remove free will. (When I say it unreasonably high, I mean it’s pretty far from balanced reasonableness like we find in a court of law - proof beyond a reasonable doubt.)

 

[tdandh26]

wow, I concede. You two are way to wise and knowledgeable for me. No matter what someone tells you, you have a convenient way of denying it, althoght it doesn’t take an intelligent person to do this. Me for example, I could deny anything based on my own personal reasoning. Im not sure what you are trying to get at with the standards for belief thing. There are no set standards, what may cause one person to believe may not cause another, and this is not just attributed to religion.

I know one thing though, that my hope in God and eternity is much more unshakable than your belief, that we are intellegent beings that have somehow come to be without intervention of another intelligent being, or that we evolved from a single cell organism randomly, as if nature has an intelligence of it own seperate from it creator. And that my friends, is where you may consider me wrong, but all the arguments and false understandings that you may develope in you all knowing minds cannot convince me that we are, each one of us worthless garbage destined for a grave to have only as our memorial a pile of lost golf balls. I hold a much higher opinion of human life than that. Christianity has done more good for the world we live in than any number of athiests put togeather. for Christianity sees the whole human race as important, where atheism sees self as important. Take your belief to their final conclusion and it leads to nothingness with no hope, for how can you hope when you cannot be there to know what you have started will come to anything.

Tell me this though please will you leave this life fighting for life when there is no chance left, or will you go peacefully to the winds.