Why God? [Archive]

ecyor0

10-08-2007, 2:47 AM

Although you have to remember: different people have different mindsets. For some people, the idea of a vastly intelligent extra-dimensional being (no, not the flying spaghetti monster :P) is far more fantastical and improbable than the idea of life arising by pure dumb luck (even with odds of 2^256 to 1 against). Likewise, there are plenty of people who are of the converse opinion (myself being one).

As a side note, part of this tendency of people to see the supernatural evidenced in the natural may be tied in with the human desire to make some sense and meaning out of existence (whether this is specific to humans or part-and-parcel of being a sentient race remains to be seen).
For some people, life without a higher power at work just doesn't make any sense. After all, if we all just die, turn into dust and fade from existence, what's the point? But the prospect of something after this mortal existence...... well, the body of literature, legend and myth speaks for itself. And once again, you have people who take the opposite stance: that appealing to a higher being is a cowards way out, that death is final, and so it makes sense to do what you can with the time that you have.
Both views produce their good apples (scientists, artists, the Wagners and Beethovens and Mother Teresas) as well as their bad apples (religious nuts, holier-than-thou snobs, hedonists, manipulators and tyrants)

The main problem arises not from the groups views themselves, but from when people from one group feel threatened by people form the other group, even when this is not justified (guilty as charged >_<). Then the worst of both comes out.

Anyway.

Back to "why God?", my short answer is "some people's mentality is such that believing in a benevolent deity waiting to take them home when their time comes is all the impetus they need to muddle through in life".

3dshocker

10-08-2007, 3:03 AM

As far as I know, and the only one logical explanation for god I have ever heard (but note, I've heard this argument in thousands of forms, so it can be mistaken for thousands of different arguments, but they're all really just one) is that it's just a matter of probability, and this [the universe, consciousness, etc...] is all too complicated to have come about without there having been some divine guidance.

That would be the design argument. I'm really interested in this one but so far every person I talked to who has supported the design argument has failed to explain it to me what the argument really is. I start asking questions about what they mean by complexity, randomness, or design, and I find out these people don't really know what they're talking about :shiftyr: this is even before getting to the part that the argument doesn't quite correlate (i think thats the word im looking for)

@ecyor

I'm not interested in peoples mind sets. Logic is not relative like our personal reasoning. I'm aware theres several people who will say "god loves me" or "i can feel he is there" etc. I'm not interested in arguments built on emotional responses. It's why I'm looking for a logical one.

this was not meant to be a discussion about human psychology and what makes us believe in god.

Jimmy_the_saint

10-08-2007, 3:47 AM

GenocideAlive

10-08-2007, 10:49 AM

For those of you posting swervingly off-topic rants or going through the trouble of flaming the OP, please read the topic. He is asking what motivates people to believe in a higher power, not "why are their Christians" or "why does the God of Abraham exist, explain to me logically". I realize that some of the debates in the IR tend to rapidly polarize into the usual suspects, but part of that is attributed to the usual suspects trying to pigeonhole discussions into familiar territory. Some of the flames and snipey posts are getting embarrassing.

My response is that people want control over the things that they cannot control. It is extremely disconcerting to know that many things that could end disastrously at the drop of a hat. So you get on board with a religious presence and it provides comfort--they're in control and they know about us. "Good behavior" or w/e will earn their favor and offer a bit of that control (because human nature says nobody offers something for nothing).

BludSyko

10-08-2007, 1:43 PM

I agree with GA, Jimmy and various other posters that a majority of people who believe in God do so because they want control over uncontrollable elements or just a general purpose in life.

As far as my beliefs go... well, if you think about how the world was created, how our galaxy or the universe was created, just how did they all come into existance? There is a theory that the universe has always existed, but I question: how is that even possible? The only semi-logical conclusion I can come up with is that some higher power (A.K.A God) created the universe long ago. Though there's no evidence to prove this right or wrong, until it is proven either way, this is what I'll believe.

Icarus

10-08-2007, 2:11 PM

People need something to believe in, and from what ive heard A supreme being that controls all life is a far better outcome to being primordial sludge and then not knowing where we are going. Some people believe in God because He apparently has a plan for all people, and i think that is what convinces them to believe. When they hear that he is all caring they figure that they are included. And who wants to be part monkey anyway?

I'm going to assume you're one of the people who believes in the more comfortable idea.

My question is: what happens to the entire concept of truth, in your mind?

There is a theory that the universe has always existed, but I question: how is that even possible?

The law of conservation of matter is that matter can neither be created or destroyed. That's sufficient proof.

Oblongato

10-08-2007, 2:18 PM

I think it's reasonably clear what subjective motivations there are for a belief in god(s). (Some of them have been mentioned here already.)

None of these, in my view, have a logical basis. There is simply nothing logical about the supernatural (which is why it is called the supernatural). If the supernatural could be demonstrated to exist, it would no longer be the supernatural. We could measure and quantify it, analyze it and figure out how it worked. Some day we would probably learn to harness it and use it as we have done with virtually everything else we have measured and quantified.

At this point it is probably necessary to draw a distinction. When people refer to god(s) do they simply mean a superior power that exists in the same realm we do? This would be the sort of god that we could someday find, measure, analyze and perhaps someday defeat and harness (if he/she/it didn't recognize the threat and extinguish us first...).

Most people, I believe, see their god(s) as existing on a separate plane, out of reach of our realm of existence, unseen, heard, touched, smelled or tasted. Such a concept of god(s) is truly supernatural. Any yet even such a supernatural god must normally have the capacity to extend his/her/its influence into our realm. The problem is, any time something enters our realm, we can observe and analyze it.

That's probably why some philosophers split existence into a physical and a spiritual realm - a physical body and a supernatural spirit. And the problem again - the supernatural cannot be demonstrated to exist. Which means there is no logical reason to believe it exists.

The burden of proof is on those claiming the existence of things that cannot be proven to exist or sensed in any way. Some claim that their arguments for the existence of a supernatural being (or even a superior natural being) are logical, but such arguments always presuppose the existence of the thing they set out to prove the existence of. Which is not logical.

It would make no sense to argue against the existence of god(s). It's not possible to prove the non-existence of anything, and I am no more able to disprove the existence of traditional god(s) than I am to disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

This is a fact of no significance, however. Without evidence, it would be foolish to discard everything we have learned about the realm we live in for a concept as illogical as the Flying Spaghetti Monster (the existence of which, of course, is exactly as probable as the existence of traditional god(s)).

Sirion

10-08-2007, 4:06 PM

The logic behind my personal belief in a omnipotent being is something I spent a lot of thought and time on. I'm a scientific person, I require explanations for almost everything. Yet there's one thing that can never really be explained, and that is really the origin of the known universe.

What came before?

Something came before the big bang, to say that nothing did would be as ignorant as blindly believing in a god. That would be suggesting something came out of nothing, which is an impossibility. Something started a chain of events which led to the universes very conception. And before that, there was something. And before that, there was something. It's an infinite chain of events.

At the same time, try getting smaller and smaller in the universe. There is something smaller than the cell, smaller than the atom, smaller than the proton, smaller than that. Or if you try to get bigger there is something bigger that our planet, bigger than our solar system, bigger than our universe.

This is God. It's impossible to imagine, impossible to explain. He didn't start it, he is it. Our universe is a place that will never have an explanation, a place within and without anything can happen. This is the very nature of God. It's the explanation to the universe, in a sense. Our 42.

3dshocker

10-08-2007, 4:56 PM

The logic behind my personal belief in a omnipotent being is something I spent a lot of thought and time on. I'm a scientific person, I require explanations for almost everything. Yet there's one thing that can never really be explained, and that is really the origin of the known universe.

Yay your a scientific person :)

What came before?

To the average person this seems like a reasonable question.

#1 "what came before?" assumes that something came before. You already jump passed the question of "was anything there before?" without providing a reason.

Something came before the big bang, to say that nothing did would be as ignorant as blindly believing in a god. The latter part of the statement does nothing to prove the first part.

That would be suggesting something came out of nothing, which is an impossibility
And why is it impossible for something to come out of nothing? Keep in mind the phrase 'absence of proof is not proof of absence'. The absoluteness of this phrase in relation to reality makes it logically flawed.

This is God. It's impossible to imagine, impossible to explain. He didn't start it, he is it. Our universe is a place that will never have an explanation, a place within and without anything can happen. This is the very nature of God. It's the explanation to the universe, in a sense. Our 42.
I'm confused but I suppose the answer was meant to be ambiguous :shiftyr:

Sirion

10-08-2007, 5:06 PM

And why is it impossible for something to come out of nothing? Keep in mind the phrase 'absence of proof is not proof of absence'. The absoluteness of this phrase in relation to reality makes it logically flawed.

Something cannot come of nothing. Nothing means no space, no time, nothing. The probability of anything happening in this nothing is nothing, not even 0, nothing. Something was there, even if that something was nothing! In the end, saying nothing was there is saying something was there because nothing is something.

However, I accept and concede in saying that this is not an absolute. There is no way to prove either side of the argument.

I'm confused but I suppose the answer was meant to be ambiguous :shiftyr:

It's an answer that I really can't explain. Imagine it like this. The universe is like a plane. It is infinite in every direction, and we are a point on this plane. I cannot say for sure. Perhaps god is the plane, but it seems more likely to me that he is the origin.

Oblongato

10-08-2007, 5:33 PM

It's an answer that I really can't explain. Imagine it like this. The universe is like a plane. It is infinite in every direction, and we are a point on this plane. I cannot say for sure. Perhaps god is the plane, but it seems more likely to me that he is the origin.

It seems to me you are acknowledging that your concept of god is undefinable, a concept that expresses what you believe is there but cannot show us - in other words, a subjective, subjectively motivated concept of god. Would you agree with this assessment?

The origin is an interesting concept. We have never experienced anything that did not come from something else. On that basis I would say it is illogical to assume that there ever was something that did not come from something else. I would therefore consider the concept of origin itself to be a myth. Or is there a logical basis for the idea of something that comes from nothing?

Kellanved

10-08-2007, 6:12 PM

The law of conservation of matter is that matter can neither be created or destroyed. That's sufficient proof.
Not that I'm siding with the theists here, but I must point out that that 'law' is only applicable to highschool science problems. Matter is, in fact, not conserved. In decay reactions some substances emit positrons from electroweak interactions. In high energy collisions in accelerators random particles are created (particularly in simulations of the Big Bang). By special relativity, when a particle is in motion of speed considerable fraction of the speed of light, its mass increases. If we set a particle and antiparticle (of mass = 2m) against each other they convert to electromagnetic photons (mass = 0, E = 2mc²).

ecyor0

10-08-2007, 6:26 PM

The universe is like a plane. It is infinite in every direction, and we are a point on this plane. I cannot say for sure. Perhaps god is the plane, but it seems more likely to me that he is the origin.

I think of him as the space around the plane.

Curious as to why people believe in god. Certainly some of you believe there is a logical reason to believe in the existence of a creator, lets hear it. Emphasis on the word logical. (I'm not going to be giving a lesson on logic and critical thinking abilities either so no kiddies allowed who might get confused.)

I'm looking forward to some well thought out posts by the non religious believers.

..... am I detecting a certain level of bias?
EDIT: ah - non religious, not non-believer. Gotcha :D

As for logical reasoning...... easier said than done. For a start, logic is only a tool to finding proof, not proof itself (by way of example: the medieval belief that the earth was flat. As a result of this belief, sailors refused to sail out into the unknown West Atlantic for fear of falling off the edge. Was this an illogical fear? Well, our initial response is "Of course it was an illogical fear" - but hold up a second. If the world was in fact flat, then fear of falling of the edge would be a completely sane and logical fear - but only if the world was flat. As we know, the world is not flat, so the fear is erroneous; but it is still completely logical. The fault comes not from false logic, but from the false premise that the logic was built on.)

Similarly, when it comes to building up a logical argument for the existence of God, you have the problem that those arguing for the existence of God start with the assumption that God is real, and that there is such a thing as the supernatural: those arguing against start from the assumption that there is no God nor anything supernatural. Both sides can then proceed to build up a 'logical' argument, while still having no concrete proof (note, I say can have no proof - not will have no proof)

"Ah, but science only forms logical arguments based on what it can observe!" you say.
This is true. However, it does not discount unobservable forces/phenomena - Magnetic force for instance. You cannot see magnetic force, you cannot observe it directly.
"Of course not - you observe the effects of it and deduce its existence from that" the reply comes back.
Again this is true - in other words, the existence is logically deduced from observable effects. But this still leaves you with the problem that you can't actually observe magnetic force itself. But no-one discounts believing magnetic force to exist as illogical.

(And before you balk at my calling it a "belief", a belief is merely something you hold to be true. Thus, even if it is proven true beyond a shadow of a doubt, you still "believe" it to be true.)

Anyhow, belief definitions aside.....

People who start from the assumption that God is real take observable effects (miraculous healings, the human ability to empathise, sympathise and seperate actions into right and wrong) and conclude that they support the existence of a God. People who start off from the assumption that God is not real take observable effects (the ability of the body to combat infection, the behavioural patterns that humans follow) and conclude that they do not support the existence of a God.

You're probably going to come back with "but I don't make assumptions - I look at the evidence and make my conclusions based on the solid facts." But this is actually making an assumption in itself - it is assuming that the solid 'facts' can only be interpreted to mean the truth. And this is not always the case.

To use another medieval example, people used to think that flies and maggots spawned directly out of rotting meat. This was based on direct interpretation of facts - you take the rotting meat, put in down somewhere, and you get flies and maggots crawling over it within hours. The belief was an interpretation of facts - but, as we know, an erroneous one. In this case, because there were facts that they didn't know to look for or observe - namely that the flies snuck in while no-one was looking. The belief in this "life from non-life" fallacy was shown when Francesco Redi performed an experiment in 1668 where he placed rotten meat into sealed and unsealed glass containers. The sealed containers didn't give rise to any flies; the unsealed ones did. This showed that it was not in fact the meat itself that made the flies and maggots, but that it merely attracted the flies.

In this case, the facts were misinterpreted, mainly because of an absence of the facts needed to prove the correct case. But this raises its own problem, and this I think is where things come to an impasse - how do you know you aren't missing important facts? You don't. By definition, if you don't know that facts about something exist, you don't know they are missing - and so you don't look for them.

Atheists say that you can't prove the existence of God from the current evidence - how do you know you aren't missing the vital piece of evidence that proves otherwise?

Theists sat that you can prove the existence of God from the current evidence - how do you know you aren't missing some vital piece of evidence to the contrary?

So in the end, I say that logical arguments are only good for working out why someone believes/disbelieves in God (i.e, their reasoning, their facts etc.) Not whether they are in fact correct.

EDIT: oh, wait..... that's what the topic was about. My bad :/

Jimmy_the_saint

10-08-2007, 10:19 PM

I'm going to assume you're one of the people who believes in the more comfortable idea.

Yes I do have what some may call "Religion" but as a person I believe that God may in some way influenced or even caused the Big Bang, and as a result we are created. I also think that you shouldn't (if you are Christian) take the First book, Genesis, Literally. I think it should be read witha grain of salt. I believe in what some call Micro Evolution. This is where instead of a whol Genus evolving, a certain species evolves to suit its surroundings

masterofhobbiton

10-08-2007, 10:27 PM

This seems to be devolving from 'why god' to 'what are your arguments for creationist creation and big-bang creation...'

In answer to the original topic, I think people would welcome god(s) into their lives as a relief; day to day life is very stressful and throughout one's life there are many moral questions raised. It would be a relief to have someone come up to you and say, "you don't have to worry about all of those impossible problems anymore, God has decreed the exact moral way you should build your lifestyle upon." Currently (in the 1900s forward) I think most people are convinced that God does exist because they accept it as a given; it is just something that parents tell children as long as they can remember. I'm sure that if the most religious of people had been raised so that their parents said that God wasn't real at age 6 then they wouldn't believe either, as with the tooth fairy and Santa Claus in the US. Is it a good thing? I don't know. Certainly it is beneficial if the people believe a god has dictated them to live a certain way and it is a nice, moral and unselfish way to live, but I think it can also be a problem when things I consider to be immoral are mixed in with the doctrine. Of course, had I been raised religiously then my set of morals might be entirely different, based on an outside source, but my morals would be consistent with everybody else's, if they were all religious too and then in theory all would be peaceful and harmonic. Just my thoughts on why people might turn to god.

Prozerran

10-08-2007, 11:15 PM

Ok, let's try to give this another go.

Curious as to why people believe in god. Certainly some of you believe there is a logical reason to believe in the existence of a creator, lets hear it. Emphasis on the word logical.

This is the first problem I see with proposing this question. Religion is not logical. The very foundation of religion is that of faith - belief, without question, in a God or Deity - so we're looking at a completely illogical discussion if we're going to try to illicit "logical explanations" for believing in the existence of a creator.

(I'm not going to be giving a lesson on logic and critical thinking abilities either so no kiddies allowed who might get confused.)

I'm looking forward to some well thought out posts by the non religious believers.

Well thought-out. Ok, here goes. Let's talk about the distinction to be made between scientific truth and religious truth.

Science and religion come from two completely different yolks. The reason a logical explanation for one's belief in a deity is unrealistic is the way in which these two patterns of thought operate. Now let me explain.

Religious truth historically derives itself from tradition, more importantly, an appeal to authority. The follower appeals to the pastor/cleric/priest who appeals to the authorship of prior pastors/clerics/priests who appeal to the authorship of some prophet who has been told a narrative from a messiah or the voice of God himself. This appeal to the past is sacred, it is fundamental truth in religion, and no matter what may happen in the present to falsify the authority, the appeal to authority functions as the truth. It then falls on those appealing to the sacred authorship to interpret (and in many cases, manipulate) the truth by reinterpreting the narrative. So, if God is, for instance, identified with specific traits like that of an owl (awake and watchful during the night when you sleep), this deity later takes on new, farer reaching traits like omnipotent and omnipresent as the authorship is reinterpreted. This is of crucial significance.

Scientific truth (which we will call "logic" for the sake of this discussion) functions on a complete and totally opposite level. Take, for instance, the heliocentric and geocentric models of the universe. At the time the geocentric model was accepted as the 'truth' of the universe, Copernicus comes along in the 16th Century and presents a fully predictive mathematical model of a heliocentric system. This later becomes elaborated on by Kepler and defended by Galileo to become the 'new' truth. So, in effect, the truth in science is only true until it is falsified and a new truth takes its place. There is no appeal to a narrative, nor authority, nor any reinterpretation. Once a truth is falsified, that's it. End of story. The end.

So, if you consider the two paradoxically, religion proceeds by reliance on the past while science proceeds by falsifying the past. The real answer to your question, then, is simply that there is no logical explanation for why one believes in God. Faith is faith, the notion of a deity (no matter how you think of said deity) is an appeal to some authorship derived from a prophet or messiah who proclaims a message from said higher power. There's my illustrious, logically sound explanation of why your question has one, and only one answer.

Sorry if this offends anyone, but if we're going to have an informed discussion, we need to understand what we can and cannot affirm with logic. I hope I've made my point clear, but if not, so be it.

Kellanved

10-08-2007, 11:29 PM

3dshocker

10-08-2007, 11:37 PM

thx for clearing that up kellanved ^_^

I think the title I gave the thread was misleading.

Prozerran

10-09-2007, 12:27 AM

Right, there's a big misunderstanding here.
The thread starter doesn't want to hear sociological theories of why there are people who believe in god. He wants to hear - from theists - their reasons for believing in god.

Not to split hairs here, but the thread starter specified that he wanted "logical explanations" for why theists believe in God, essentially not "because the Bible says so." The problem is, the Bible says so, and even if that's not fundamentally at the heart of anyone's belief here, there is no logic behind believing in an entity that cannot be quantified or proven to exist. Furthermore, religious thought doesn't require someone to have a reason, and ironically enough, religion actually requires people to believe in God without questioning his existence or the tenets to be followed in the faith.

Apparently there is a big misunderstanding here, but I don't believe I'm the one misunderstanding anything. I see it as a loaded question that essentially calls for the religious to rationalize their beliefs for the thread starter when they, by the nature of their faith, have no reason to do so.

If you're going to have a truly honest, balanced discussion about anyone's rationale for belief in anything, it should not be blanketed by the umbrella of scientific truth. There are plenty of sound reasons to believe in God, and logic has little to do with it. Let's have a real discussion about faith, if there's to be one at all. Otherwise, don't waste space. Ya know?

Kellanved

10-09-2007, 1:15 AM

That wasn't a direct response to you Prozerran, just a general statement.

Also, Prozerran, I see a flaw to your argument (yes, you're receiving a rebuttal from an atheist). You're assuming that the theist = the religious. While religion was the original basis for believing in god, many people reject religion but accept god. Those are, I think, the particular target audience of this thread.

Also, you can conclude a logical inference from either logic that proves the conclusion, or logic that suggests the conclusion, and there isn't a single explicit defenition of logic that favors the former. Thus, you can take an observation, and by logic, conclude something that is merely suggested by the observation, and fashion your conclusion by personal likelyhood rather than certainty. This is like using logic to speculate that gravitational attraction is proportional to a body's mass because the Earth attracts things more than any other object we observe. Obviously that's not explicit proof, but it's still a conclusion drawn by logic, while it isn't a certainty.
(Note that we have far more than that that suggest gravitation, such as orbital speeds and trajectories observed that completely agree with Newton's equation.)

Remember that mathematicians aren't the only people that use logic.... physicists do too :D

I think the title I gave the thread was misleading.
It makes it seem like something awful has happened to you.

GenocideAlive

10-09-2007, 1:37 AM

It makes it seem like something awful has happened to you.
I think it's just that he's either exceptionally poor at communicating his ideas or he's very lazy and has no idea regarding the impact of word selection. I even made a point of reigning Prozerran in after his initial post, because I thought he was being a little harsh. But it's starting to look more like I made the mistake in assuming shocker wasn't just trolling.

Sorry, Prozerran.

3dshocker

10-09-2007, 1:55 AM

I don't troll O_o

Apparently there is a big misunderstanding here, but I don't believe I'm the one misunderstanding anything. I see it as a loaded question that essentially calls for the religious to rationalize their beliefs for the thread starter when they, by the nature of their faith, have no reason to do so.

I wasn't expecting anything from the religious ppl though they are free to comment. I explicitly said I'm looking forward to the views of the non religious believers. You don't have to be religious to believe in god you know?

Prozerran

10-09-2007, 2:20 AM

I think it's just that he's either exceptionally poor at communicating his ideas or he's very lazy and has no idea regarding the impact of word selection. I even made a point of reigning Prozerran in after his initial post, because I thought he was being a little harsh. But it's starting to look more like I made the mistake in assuming shocker wasn't just trolling.

Sorry, Prozerran.

Heh, does that mean I can get that infraction off my record? :) J/k... I feel like a rebel... I sort of like it, as strange as that seems... to me even. Wow.

I think I was pretty harsh with my initial post and could have been clearer, less dramatic, and more factual with my argument. There's no reason I shouldn't have been fragged for it.

I wasn't expecting anything from the religious ppl though they are free to comment. I explicitly said I'm looking forward to the views of the non religious believers. You don't have to be religious to believe in god you know?

You start a thread called "Why God?" and didn't expect anything from the religious members of the forum? Heh, what exactly are they free to comment on anyway? The way the question is posed, there's very little they're free to comment on other than the nature of logic and the discrepancy that results with trying to pin some logical explanation to a religious idea, that of God.

But let's just resolve to discuss this on the merits of fundamental faith. How do we rationalize believing in something we do not have tangible proof exists? What reasoning do we rely upon when deciding to be faithful in anything? To ourselves? To others? To a higher power? And does faith in a higher power reinforce faith in a better world, or does it merely comfort us in the thought of a life after death?

You tell me, Shocker, is this what you're after? This I'm totally down for discussing.

xodkrm

10-09-2007, 2:23 AM

To believe there is some omnipotent and undescribable physical power above you that controls everything that will and can happen in your life.

Because it makes life easier.

ecyor0

10-09-2007, 6:24 AM

I explicitly said I'm looking forward to the views of the non religious believers. You don't have to be religious to believe in god you know?

Always pays to read the heading, doesn't it? :D

Anyhoo, now that I'm clear on that I feel a lot more confident with going into my reasons for believing.

Firstly, although I have given impressions to the contrary at various points in IR, I do not look to arguments about "can science prove the existence of god" for the basis of my belief (Usually it's just a knee-jerk "hey, christians is people too, you know" reaction, where I feel kind of obligated to defend the position, even if it doesn't affect me one way or the other what people think) My belief is based on personal experience, and personal experience of those around me.

Now, I will say right off the bat that although I do not consider myself religious, I am what some might call the stereotypical religious person. I was brought up in a Christian family, actively encouraged from a young age to pray/read the bible etc, attended church regularly (Anglican church whats more) and in general, have had very little real world contact with atheists outside IR (plenty of agnostics though - and I must say that agnostics are a lot more fun to argue with; probably just because I don't perceive them as a polar opposite, but also they tend to concentrate their discussion on "well, what kind of person would God be if he was real?" Rather than just saying "he's not real, and you are illogical to think so" - anyway, getting off topic XD)

So just let me stress again, I do not consider myself religious; 'religious' by my definition is the kind of arrogant, self-centered, holier-than-thou person who thinks that everything they believe is right, and that all others must conform to their standard. And trust me, people like this do more damage to christians than to atheists, hard as that may be to believe. I do not hold my personal image of what God is like to be infallible - this is impossible for anyone, since how can a finite being comprehend an infinite one? While I may remain unmovable in regards to god's existence, I at least try to keep my view of his nature flexible.

Anyway, onto my reasons for belief: mostly they boil down to "there must be at least some validity to the idea of God's existence, otherwise I wouldn't see this kind of thing" When I say "this kind of thing" I don't mean miracles or praying in tongues (although I'll move onto that in a sec) I refer more to the actions of those around me. While I have never seen the lame walk (except on television) I have seen what I think is fairly compelling evidence of answered prayer: a friend of my father's had trouble with a particular workmate at work (painting/roofing etc.) The man was talented, but impossible to work with - everyone else at work were rapidly getting gray hairs. My parents offered him a few prayers to pray that might help (mainly to do with cutting soul ties and drawing yourself under the Cross - that'll probably sound very arcane to some of you, but remember, this is what I was brought up with - perfectly natural, normal way of dealing with something from my point of view) anyway, within a week, the man up and left (of his own volition) and a new guy came in with all the skills of the previous guy, but with a nice attitude to boot. (Gave my dad's friend a slight scare - "wow, these things really DO work")

Might as well mention at this point that my parents (and me for that matter) don't just recite prayers from rote - there are certain "techniques" of prayer (for lack of a better word) that they use; the type will depend on the individual case. Also, very, very few (if any) are directional - "make such-and-such a good person" is very definitely the wrong way to pray in our household. Mostly they consist of submitting the whole situation to God, relinquishing any wrong attitudes or thoughts about it, and then carrying on with life as per normal.

And it works very well. I know (not I think, I have observed this effect on multiple occasions) that when I forget to pray regularly etc, I tend to become very aimless and drifting. When I remember to pray regularly, things generally work out. And sometimes, when I've forgotten to pray for a VERY long time (a few months) there's almost a palpable change in atmosphere when I do start praying (not the physical atmosphere, just my general attitude/perception)

Also, while I have been brought up in an atmosphere saturated with christianity, you could hardly call me sheltered. School bullies tend to bring the cruelness of the world hitting home in a very unceremonious fashion. Especially when it continues from age 5 to 14. However, my family have never believed that being a chirstian makes all your problems go away - if anything it compounds them. Jesus once said: "whoever wishes to follow me must take up his cross".

The cross is, in a word, suffering. Not just moderate hardship. Proper suffering. But not needless suffering. The whole point of the cross is to make you a stronger, better, more balanced person - bringing you one step closer to what God wants you to be (argh, dropping back into using the personal pronoun - can I just continue using it, and you lot take it as granted that I'm referring to 'you' as anyone, rather than you personally? k thanks :D) as such, if you have dedicated yourself to Jesus, the load will increase a fair bit. However, rather than just being an unfair yoke that God puts on you, it's more of a smith's hammer - if you think about it, if a sword could feel pain, it would experience indescribable agony during the whole smithing process. But the finished product.....

Also rather than just setting up the trials and expecting you to manage, God(Jesus/Holy Spirit - all the same entity from my standpoint) came down and went through it himself, not only to pay the price so that people could actually get to heaven, but so that no matter how horrendous things get, you always know that Jesus understands exactly what you're going through, because he went through it (and worse) himself (scoff if you like, but knowing there is someone else out there who understands what you're going through makes it a lot more bearable)

This has been very much the case with my parents - my mum was diagnosed with fybromyalgia about 20 years ago (its a muscle condition which basically makes physical work of any kind very painful), and also when they were about to get married, a certain woman in the church at that time, who had 'set her sights' on my dad managed to turn the entire congregation against them. In short, its been no bed of roses, much like everyone else in this world. However, their faith hasn't suffered (if anything it became for mature) and instead of being bitter, they are a lot more empathetic than a few people I've met (no-one at IR :)). Now that, to me, is a very good reason to believe.

(phew!) OK, end of my life story. Does that qualify as logical reasoning? Or have I merely succeeded in showing how illogical belief in God is? :P

Prozerran

10-09-2007, 1:46 PM

(phew!) OK, end of my life story. Does that qualify as logical reasoning? Or have I merely succeeded in showing how illogical belief in God is? :P

You bring up an interesting perspective of religion, of drifting between the rhetoric of religion and the solitude of personal belief. To me, this is the ideal setting for religion, providing direction and focus on ones own trials and tribulations in the real world. Some find it odd that people with religious beliefs pray, or ask for some benevolent guidance from a higher being. But this is no different than asking for strength or guidance from a lost loved one. The idea is really kind of simple. We mostly look to our elders for guidance. "What did you do in this situation, and how can I make the most out of this?" and so on.

I think you've succeeded in putting the strength religion offers to one's own state of mind into perspective. There are things to learn from your narrative that many can integrate into their own belief system or draw upon when times are tough. I've moved on from religious belief personally (for my own reasons, not because I do or do not believe), but my philosophy on life is hinged upon my acceptance of my reality in the moment. If something happens that makes life miserable for me, I have to take a step back and try to see the bigger picture. I think the same applies for all of us, since it's so easy to get caught up in the moment and become so acutely unaware of the significance each moment has in our lives. So, yeah, I think this does have a certain logic behind it, or at the very least, sound reasoning supporting how religion is a benefit to the way you live your life.

Oblongato

10-09-2007, 3:33 PM

People who start from the assumption that God is real take observable effects (miraculous healings, the human ability to empathise, sympathise and seperate actions into right and wrong) and conclude that they support the existence of a God. People who start off from the assumption that God is not real take observable effects (the ability of the body to combat infection, the behavioural patterns that humans follow) and conclude that they do not support the existence of a God.

...

Atheists say that you can't prove the existence of God from the current evidence - how do you know you aren't missing the vital piece of evidence that proves otherwise?

Theists sat that you can prove the existence of God from the current evidence - how do you know you aren't missing some vital piece of evidence to the contrary?

So in the end, I say that logical arguments are only good for working out why someone believes/disbelieves in God (i.e, their reasoning, their facts etc.) Not whether they are in fact correct.

You make some interesting points in your post, but I think you are slightly (but significantly) misrepresenting the atheist side (at least for those who think as I do).

Atheists do not necessarily start off with the assumption that god(s) (hereinafter "God") is/are not real. Atheists do not believe simply because there is no evidence to support the conclusion that God is real. This is where non-believers are clearly more logical than believers (with their presupposition of the existence of God). An atheist, faced with evidence, changes his belief. A believer probably cannot be convinced, period.

Lack of evidence alone is sufficient reason not to believe in God. But the fact that the existence of God would contradict many of the things that have already been demonstrated to be true using scientific method also puts belief in God into the category of the absurd, from a logical standpoint.

As I've mentioned somewhere in another thread (wait, it was this one, post 11), it is not possible to disprove the existence of something (because you never have all of the information, as you point out). But, to repeat my favorite example, believers who use this argument must demonstrate to me how their concept of God is more probable than the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, an impossible task since the lack of evidence for God, and the FSM, is exactly equal.

Of course, there are still subjective motivations to believe in God, but these are personal, and not logical.

3dshocker

10-09-2007, 3:33 PM

The way the question is posed, there's very little they're free to comment on other than the nature of logic and the discrepancy that results with trying to pin some logical explanation to a religious idea, that of God.

I don't know for a fact that all religions use faith. It's certainly possible that some religious dude out there has reason to believe in the things does without faith. If he's here on this forum I'd be interested in hearing his thoughts.

You tell me, Shocker, is this what you're after? This I'm totally down for discussing. This topic is not about discussing faith but I would be interested in discussing that in another topic.

I have seen what I think is fairly compelling evidence of answered prayer: I'm aware that what appears to be a miracle can be very emotionally stimulating but it's just that. The research done into prayers has suggested that there is no correlation between it and getting what you want. 50 miners trapped in a mine that's caving in. All of them praying to god. A few of them managed to escape and when they come out they say god answered their prayers. True story but not sure about the exact numbers. Do you see what im driving at?

As for the rest of your post it simply seems to be based of personal experiences and it very well suits the comfort blanket argument used against religion.

and no, you have neither given a logical reason as to why god exists nor have you shown that it is illogical to believe in god. I believe the latter is a bit impossible O_o

Dragonboyjgh

10-09-2007, 3:47 PM

I don't know for a fact that all religions use faith. It's certainly possible that some religious dude out there has reason to believe in the things does without faith. If he's here on this forum I'd be interested in hearing his thoughts.

i am not, but i know of one. Samuel Adams, the writer of 'Dilbert' comics believe not in any diety, but in a method of the workings of the universe, where simply repeatedly thinking of what you want causes such to happen, on the basis that the electronic impulses your brain sends can influence your surroundings to cause you to move to "adjacent parralel universes more to your liking", on the basis that there is no movement, just your perception moving through alternate universes at a speed that would portray movement because of the slight changes in between them. He believes that your thoughts can steer you to adjacent universes of what you thought. Source: Chapter 14 of 'The Dilbert Future"

Tech

10-09-2007, 8:40 PM

But, to repeat my favorite example, believers who use this argument must demonstrate to me how their concept of God is more probable than the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, an impossible task since the lack of evidence for God, and the FSM, is exactly equal.

I don't really plan on remaining in this debate, because as it's been said before, it's impossible to give an answer to the question that was asked. But I do love when people bring up the magnificent and all powerful FSM. Some people think it's as if just the mention of this alone defeats anything a Christian can say. So I'll bring up this point, it's been touched on earlier in this thread but I'd like to elaborate and interject my ideas.

If the universe was created by the big bang, then there are two possibilities as to how this happened:

1. A vast empty void containing absolutely nothing spontaneously erupts into the innumerable stars and planets that make up the universe as we know it. This of course flies in the face of everything that science has ever observed about matter, and would be much more compelling evidence for the existence of a god (take your pick) than against the existence of said god.

2.There has always been a universe and will always be a universe. It is infinite, it has no beginning and no end (since any beginning would be spontaneous and out of nothing, hence proof of a god).

So the interesting thing about an infinite universe is that not only is everything literally possible, but everything that you can possibly imagine actually exists somewhere. There are an infinite number of worlds exactly like ours, and an infinite number of worlds in which just one decision is different. So what I find most interesting about this idea, is that every point of view is exactly as probable as every other point of view; because, with an infinite number of possibilities out there in the universe everything is true somewhere. So as for the flying spaghetti monster, yes he is exactly as probable as the Christian God, the Jewish God, and the Islamic Allah, but he is also exactly as probable as any scientific theory that we have today.

Somewhere out there on some distant planet and infinite number of years ago there could have been a species that was on the perfect planet at the perfect time under the perfect circumstances (actually, there are an infinite number of occurrences like this every nano-second) that they were able to evolve beyond the point of dying to become immortal, their brains evolved to be so superior that they could actually see into the future by some means, and they could not only create matter, but life from nothing more than the electrical signals from thoughts in their brain. This species then spread out across the universe, one of them found an empty void and boom, here we are. It just so happens that this one entity is the Christian God, and because he knows how his people evolved, he created our planet to already appear to be millions of years older than it is, as well as planting fossil evidence to be found to simulate the evolutionary process (perhaps he was an impatient infinite being that didn't want to wait for us to evolve). So to our planet (or at least an infinite number of planets out there) the concept of a an omnipotent, omnipresent god is true. Science just happens to be receiving false data that was put in place to test the faith of people on the planet.

Now this is just as probable a scenario as any other scenario. So yes, the FSM is just as probable as the Christian God, but I'll choose to believe in the Christian God because there's more recorded data of people's experiences with him than with the FSM.

Now feel free to tear apart this post, this isn't what I actually believe. I just thought it would be an interesting discussion piece for the topic of logical reasons for believing in a god. I've also noticed that some people in this thread have been confusing whether something is logical, with whether something is scientific, so I've even thrown in some scientific aspects to my little example for those people.

3dshocker

10-09-2007, 9:08 PM

So the interesting thing about an infinite universe is that not only is everything literally possible, but everything that you can possibly imagine actually exists somewhere. There are an infinite number of worlds exactly like ours,
you started off this bit by using a universe that has been around for an infinite amount of time, don't go beyond the boundaries of your dimension here. Something that's been around for an infinite amount of time hasn't necessarily gone through infinite phases. These are two different things.

hooded

10-09-2007, 10:19 PM

1. A vast empty void containing absolutely nothing spontaneously erupts into the innumerable stars and planets that make up the universe as we know it. This of course flies in the face of everything that science has ever observed about matter, and would be much more compelling evidence for the existence of a god (take your pick) than against the existence of said god.

2.There has always been a universe and will always be a universe. It is infinite, it has no beginning and no end (since any beginning would be spontaneous and out of nothing, hence proof of a god).

According to your logic, any beginning would be spontaneous and out of nothing is impossible (you therefore claim that this implies a cause). god has been referred to as the uncaused cause. This is also known as the cosmological argument for god. The gaping logical flaw in this argument is what caused god? Was god simply there from the beginning? Consider which of the following is more reasonable:

god exists forever -> god creates universe

universe exists forever (in some unknowable form (unknowable from inflation theory))

Both demand that something exists forever, however, you can see how the god explanation contains an arrow and the naturalist explanation does not (meaning another level of complexity)? Logic happens to claim that the process which involves the least complex solution is more likely.

Nothing can deny the other claims you have made. Yes, the universe could have been constructed to appear as if it was billions of years older than it was. However, the only empirical “evidence” for this is a lack of evidence to the contrary (it relies on an assumption, and then data to refute the assumption, as opposed to beginning with data, and then making assumptions based on the data. Its backwards ie. reliance on the negative proof). I could make a ridiculous claim, such as unicorns existing in an underground society on Mars, and no one could refute this claim, however, if I was to truly believe such a thing, people would call me crazy. Maybe you should take the red pill?

Tech

10-09-2007, 10:36 PM

you started off this bit by using a universe that has been around for an infinite amount of time, don't go beyond the boundaries of your dimension here. Something that's been around for an infinite amount of time hasn't necessarily gone through infinite phases.

A universe that has been around for an infinite amount of time that has been expanding and evolving for an infinite amount of time would most likely have gone through infinite phases as well.

Nothing can deny the other claims you have made. Yes, the universe could have been constructed to appear as if it was billions of years older than it was. However, the only empirical “evidence” for this is a lack of evidence to the contrary. I could make a ridiculous claim, such as unicorns existing in an underground society on Mars, and no one could refute this claim

That right there was my whole point. In a universe such as that one, everything would be true somewhere. So taking the view that everything is possible, every argument is just as probable as the next, despite proof or lack there of.

Now I'll repeat it again, this is not my actual view, it was just something to think about.

Icarus

10-09-2007, 10:39 PM

Are you implying the naturalist explanation is more complex, or the theistic one?

And when you're speaking about entirely theoretical situations (like this, because there's obviously an insufficient amount of historical evidence to explain exactly how the world "began", or even if it did "begin"), occam's razor is null and void. It's illogical to assume that wherever there is a gap in science, the simplest answer is the best. You should measure it by compatibility with the all that is currently known in science.

A universe that has been around for an infinite amount of time that has been expanding and evolving for an infinite amount of time would most likely have gone through infinite phases as well.

Or the same sets of phases repeating.

hooded

10-09-2007, 10:49 PM

1. The evidence shows that the (known) universe has not existed for an infinite period of time. Research cosmic microwave background, or cosmic background radiation as well as inflation theory, and you will find a number of 13.7 billion years, which is in general consensus among physicists. Again, the physics behind this could be wrong, but the EMR approaching Earth from the farthest source (the surface of last scattering, a (sort-of) bubble surrounding everything) is ~27.4 billion light years in diameter (13.7 billion LY in radius). If the speed of light has remained constant, it is therefore reasonable to claim that the (known) universe is 13.7 billion years old. Where it becomes sort of grey is what happened in the first few seconds (and before). I have heard about extremely large high energy particles, which existed in a clump before the big bang, and I have heard about theories where the mass of all matter and the antimatter in the universe sums to zero and therefore does not break thermodynamics through spontaneous generation, but none of these theories seem to have much validity in the scientific community, and there is a lot of debate. I think that anything occurring before the big bang is pretty much unknowable by us, because as the big bang was the start of the universe, there is nothing left behind in the universe from before.

2. Well the topic did ask for if (non-traditional/religious) theists have a logical reason for the belief in their deity. 'Its possible' is not a logical basis for belief, any more so than the underground unicorn civilization, or that we all live in the Matrix.

Tech

10-09-2007, 10:56 PM

Its possible is not a logical basis for belief...

How logical something is is determined by which belief you hold to. If you believe the infinite universe story that I've put forward, in which everything is probable. Then there is sufficient evidence to support the belief. There is a recorded history of people believing and communicating with God, there are records of unexplainable/miraculous things, and there is a lot that science hasn't explained yet. The only theory that explains everything would be that of a God. Perfectly logical according to that belief, yet not scientific in the least.

Icarus

10-09-2007, 11:12 PM

Maybe you're misunderstanding me... I'm not denying the big bang, or any other scientifically founded conclusions concerning the "beginning" of our universe. I'm suggesting that these events happen over and over (i.e., the universe expands and contracts over and over), resulting in a universe existing over an infinite amount of time.

@tech: I believe you have the wrong dictionary. That is in no way relevant to "logic".

hooded

10-09-2007, 11:31 PM

There is a recorded history of people believing and communicating with God, there are records of unexplainable/miraculous things, and there is a lot that science hasn't explained yet. The only theory that explains everything would be that of a God.

People communicating with god is very weak evidence in support of a god. I communicate with the unicorns on Mars. This does not make it significantly more valid than it did before I made that statement, because it can be readily explained by me lying/hallucinating. Unexplainable/miraculous things can be explained. Lightning used to be miraculous and unexplainable (and was attributed to gods), now we have knowledge of charges and electrostatics and can even simulate events close to that of lightning under synthetic conditions. Chaos theory could also explain ANY unexplained event (the random collision, decay, deflection, etc. of particles in an unexpected way), as could mass hallucination (maybe you’re really an ant having daydreams about this whole existence), maybe we live in the Matrix.

The point is, the only empirical “evidence” for your belief is that “its possible, and has not/cannot be disproved”. This is not a logical approach.

The logical approach I like to look at is starting with the assumption that there is nothing. For example, Momentum:

Logical Progression: There is nothing. Now you pull a Descartes and realize you exist, therefore there is something. You can observe other tangible somethings. Those something behave in a certain way. Those somethings take more force to stop when they are going faster, or are heavier than if they were lighter and/or slower. This changes slightly at high velocities. Theory developed is a piece of modern relativity, where momentum is proportional to the object’s relative mass and velocity.

Illogical Progression (your argument): Undetectable goblins push things. Different numbers of undetectable goblins push different things. Theory developed is that undetectable goblins push things. We cannot observe them because they are undetectable, as per the first assumption.

Although it is true, the logical progression could have also ended up at the undetectable goblin theory, however the logical progression theory started off with the assumption of nothing (the least assuming assumption I can think of). And I believe that the logical progression allows for a break, with multiple theories to explain the evidence after you realize that “Those somethings take more force to stop when they are going faster, or are heavier than if they were lighter and/or slower” step, and after that, accept the one that best fits with this evidence, evidence from other fields of observation, and simplicity. The illogical progression does not allow a break away from the goblin theory, simply because it assumes goblins from the beginning.

It is a logical fallacy to assume P is true because there is no proof P is false, and therefore illogical to follow your argument. Again, it is possible for god to exist as per your argument, but the topic asked for logical reasons for the belief in god, not reasons why god is possible.

Dragonboyjgh

10-10-2007, 12:09 AM

one entity is the Christian God, and because he knows how his people evolved, he created our planet to already appear to be millions of years older than it is, as well as planting fossil evidence to be found to simulate the evolutionary process (perhaps he was an impatient infinite being that didn't want to wait for us to evolve). Science just happens to be receiving false data that was put in place to test the faith of people on the planet.
hold it! it just says he created them. it does not explain the process. could he not have used evolution to create said animals.

Tech

10-10-2007, 12:15 AM

...but the topic asked for logical reasons for the belief in god, not reasons why god is possible.

Ok, I'll put my example into a logical progression for you.

While contemplating God you decide to start at the creation of the universe (this will either prove or disprove God right away). The big bang theory is presented, yet what caused the big bang? There must have been something there. According to what has been observed in science things don't spontaneously appear, there has to be something there to actually "bang" in the first place. Whatever was there that caused the bang had to come from somewhere, yet as we just stated, things don't spontaneously appear, so it must have always been there. So we've come up with infinity. So now that we've come up with our belief of the creation of the universe (it neither proved or disproved God), we can continue towards our belief/disbelief in God. So now lets look at some of the evidence we have. We have science, constantly changing and proving itself wrong, data being twisted based on who funds it, and lots of data that can be interpreted different ways. Then you've got the Bible (or other sacred text for the other belief systems of the world) which has remained constant, there is science that proves it, and there is science that disproves it. Yet it has an explanation for the big questions, while science is missing those things. So the decision has to be made whether we will believe science which is constantly changing it's views on things, or the Bible which has remained steady. Since we've acknowledged the infinite universe, it's very likely that compared to what's out there, we know basically nothing about science. At this point it is decided that in the bigger picture the Bible at least has some explanation, while science's explanation keeps shifting. So the conclusion to believe the Bible over science is achieved.

Is that a good enough logical progression for you?

it just says he created them. it does not explain the process. could he not have used evolution to create said animals.

It also says that he created man in his own image, and that he was created from the dust of the earth, so yes it does say how he was created. If you really want to freak out the scientific community you can even go so far as to bring up that the earth is only 6000 years old, but we won't do that here because this isn't a debate about religion, it's a debate about logical reasons for believing in a god.

3dshocker

10-10-2007, 12:25 AM

A universe that has been around for an infinite amount of time that has been expanding and evolving for an infinite amount of time would most likely have gone through infinite phases as well.

I don't see the reason why something that expanded for an infinite amount of time can go through all possible phases. Where is this probability coming from and how are you justifying infiniteness in one dimension affecting anything in another?

I don't see how what your saying is all that different from saying that an infinitely long line that passing through the points (1,1,1) (0,0,0) - this is 3d space xyz coords - passes through all possible points in space.

I can't think of a reason to suggest that anything that expands infinitely in all directions over an infinite amount of time would cause it's contents to be affected by its expansion or its age.

i.e. if your argument holds true then it means that if a ball is inside a box that is expanding infinitely in all directions over an infintie amount of time the ball must go through infinite orientations, positions, stretches, modifications etc. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that anything happens to the ball. Hope you understand what I mean.

The infinity you refer to is bound within the dimension you created in - volume and time.

Tech

10-10-2007, 12:34 AM

I don't see the reason why something that expanded for an infinite amount of time can go through all possible phases.

If there is at all a probability that something is possible, given infinite time and space, it will happen. That's the great thing about infinity.

I can't think of a reason to suggest that anything that expands infinitely in all directions over an infinite amount of time would cause it's contents to be affected by its expansion or its age.

I'm not sure when I said that the expansion or age had anything to do with changing what we have now. Especially since in infinity time is basically irrelevant, so age is irrelevant.

if your argument holds true then it means that if a ball is inside a box that is expanding infinitely in all directions over an infintie amount of time the ball must go through infinite orientations, positions, stretches, modifications etc. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that anything happens to the ball. Hope you understand what I mean.

I'm gonna have to agree with GA here and just assume you're bad at communicating in general. If the box is expanding infinitely then nothing happens to the ball, only the box would expand the ball would stay exactly the same. I'm not sure when I said anything that would make this example relevant. If I did I'd like you to point it out to me so that I can know what you're talking about though.

@124167: Logic (from Classical Greek λόγος logos; meaning word, thought, idea, argument, account, reason, or principle) is the study of the principles and criteria of valid inference and demonstration.

-Inference is the act or process of deriving a conclusion based solely on what one already knows.

-a proof is a demonstration that, assuming certain axioms, some statement is necessarily true.

There's the wikipedia definition, that's the one I've always been raised to know.

hooded

10-10-2007, 1:10 AM

While contemplating God you decide to start at the creation of the universe (this will either prove or disprove God right away). The big bang theory is presented, yet what caused the big bang? There must have been something there. According to what has been observed in science things don't spontaneously appear, there has to be something there to actually "bang" in the first place. Whatever was there that caused the bang had to come from somewhere, yet as we just stated, things don't spontaneously appear, so it must have always been there. So we've come up with infinity. So now that we've come up with our belief of the creation of the universe (it neither proved or disproved God), we can continue towards our belief/disbelief in God. So now lets look at some of the evidence we have. We have science, constantly changing and proving itself wrong, data being twisted based on who funds it, and lots of data that can be interpreted different ways. Then you've got the Bible (or other sacred text for the other belief systems of the world) which has remained constant, there is science that proves it, and there is science that disproves it. Yet it has an explanation for the big questions, while science is missing those things. So the decision has to be made whether we will believe science which is constantly changing it's views on things, or the Bible which has remained steady. Since we've acknowledged the infinite universe, it's very likely that compared to what's out there, we know basically nothing about science. At this point it is decided that in the bigger picture the Bible at least has some explanation, while science's explanation keeps shifting. So the conclusion to believe the Bible over science is achieved.

Again, by your logic, I can claim that I am consistent in my statements about unicorns underground on Mars. Science cannot disprove me, and science is not consistent, so a belief in Unicorns is preferable.

Science is in constant flux because it corrects itself. Something like the bible which remains constant does not. Genesis cannot be taken literally based on evidence we can readily collect (fossils, radioactive decay, etc), and it will never correct itself.
Science does correct itself: People could have remained adamant that the world is flat, and it would obviously be false, yet have the consistency that you seek (and you claim as your evidence for the existance of god).

You may choose now to ignore the minor inconstancies in the bible, and the growth of science and proceed to the answers to the “big questions” you spoke of. The bible relies on eyewitness accounts, heresy (the legal definition), and myth to provide substance to belief. No empirical evidence is provided by the bible (to the best of my knowledge), which puts it on par with the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Science cannot answer these questions because it cannot arbitrarily point at the sky and say “He did it”. Science does require strong empirical evidence, which we do not have enough of to make a solid, testable, and consistent explanation of the some of the “big questions”.

Furthermore, some “big questions” have a scientific answer. Evolution is a good example of a big question which has both a scientific and a biblical explanation. The biblical explanation is that god created humans based on stories. A scientific explanation (macroevolution) claims that life evolved from single celled organisms based on evidence. Although evolution is a theory, evidence such as genetics and fossil records support the theory, whereas all the biblical explanation has is the bible.

If you look back, you will see ecyor0 says that the logical supports for theism start from the assumption of a deity, and the logical arguments against a deity start from the assumption that there is no deity (post #17). Because no empirical evidence can be observed, the assumption of no deity is logical. Again it seems your arguments are all based on the fact that there is no evidence to contradict god.

Empirical evidence of existence is required before belief is logical (and the original topic did ask for the logical reasons for the belief in god). Look at the definitions you provide. You need to demonstrate (with empirical evidence) god before it becomes a logical belief.

Tech

10-10-2007, 1:50 AM

Okay, something I left out of my progression then would be that someday science could disprove what it used to disprove the Bible. In essence, since nothing in science is concrete then the scientific arguments against the Bible don't mean much in the big picture of infinity, a million years from now science could change its stance and agree with the Bible.

As far as the gospel of the FSM, there isn't one. It was based on nothing more than spite for religion, so in my view holds no validity. Yet it could be just as probable anyway.

Macro-evolution has evidence based on conjecture at best. Four different scientists can take the same pile of fossils and make four different dinosaurs. Micro-evolution however can be used as support of the Bible, how did Noah get all of the animals on the ark? He only took basic creatures who then micro-evolved into different species of horse or dog as they spread across the planet. But this isn't an argument about evolution, so this is just some reasoning behind the logic as to why we can ignore science proving the Bible wrong.

And I know what Ecyor0 said, and fully agree with it. That's the reason I posted this point of view to begin with, because religion will never be logical to a scientist who requires empirical evidence. I don't actually believe what I'm posting, it's just an argument that's trying to blend the religious logic with the scientific logic. Maybe I'm just doing a horrible job at it though. If you'd prefer that I just shut up and leave then that's fine too. As I said in my first post, there's no way to answer the question that the topic creator asked.

Yes by my logic you can believe in the unicorns from mars all you want. That's the whole point of what I'm saying. When you introduce the concept of infinity, everything gets screwed up. That's why we'll forever be stuck at the conclusion that the big bang was the start of everything, science can't deal with infinity because there is no possible way to keep track of and measure an infinite number of variables.

Look at the definitions you provide. You need to demonstrate (with empirical evidence) god before it becomes a logical belief.

Wrong. I need to demonstrate that, assuming certain axioms it is true.

-An axiom is a sentence or proposition that is not proved or demonstrated and is considered as self-evident

You're throwing in the empirical evidence requirement because that is what you base your systems of beliefs on. It is in no way a requirement in logic to have evidence (usually some evidence is nice if you want other people to believe you at all though). In science, yes. But logic is based on one's beliefs and perceptions. Every person has their own unique logic. The majority of people use science as the base of their logic these days. Yet if one firmly believes that nothing science has come up with is true, then to that person their statements would be perfectly logical, while to others it would be completely illogical. Like I said in my first post, people are confusing logic with science, there is a difference between the two. Just because logic is a part of science doesn't mean that it is science.

ecyor0

10-10-2007, 2:13 AM

The bible relies on eyewitness accounts, heresy (the legal definition), and myth to provide substance to belief. No empirical evidence is provided by the bible (to the best of my knowledge), which puts it on par with the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The bible says that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by fire and sulphur. The city of Gomorrah is archaeologically known to have existed, and while excavating, various minuscule spheres of almost pure sulphur have been discovered - a form that could only be created under extreme heat.

The book of Daniel (after the Daniel in the Lion's Den story) catalog's various prophetic visions Daniel had that accurately chronicled the rise and fall of the four major empires of the ancient world - Babylon, Assyria, Greece (Alexander the Great's kingdom specifically) and Rome.
"So it was written afterwards" people say. That would be a valid argument, except that when the book was translated into aramaic in around 200BC, they had great difficulty doing so, because the language it was written in hadn't been spoken for a few centuries. And at that point the roman empire still hadn't turned up yet.

The bible mentions the Hittite empire a few times in the histories of Israel. Until recently this was a very big trump card for those wanting to blast the bible's historical inaccuracy - "this book talks about an empire that didn't even exist! There's no archaeological record of any 'Hittites' or their empire!" Well recently, archaeological digs and references in ancient Egyptian histories show that the Hittites did exist, and they did have an empire. Not only that, it was a very strong empire, so much so that Egypt had diplomatic dealings with them.

Now, other events such as the global flood and the parting of the red sea are a great deal more dubious to be sure - I'm just pointing out the bible does haveat least some parts that are testable.

And just to be extra finicky - technically, the results of a scientific experiment are an eyewitness account of the scientist conducting it.

3dshocker

10-10-2007, 2:19 AM

If there is at all a probability that something is possible, given infinite time and space, it will happen. That's the great thing about infinity.

I'm not sure when I said that the expansion or age had anything to do with changing what we have now. Especially since in infinity time is basically irrelevant, so age is irrelevant.

I don't quite get it....when you say time you mean tick tock tick tock, time right? not something else? To say that the universe has been around for an infinite amount of time would be to say that it's age is infinity? And when you say space I assume your refering to volume? I don't see how something sitting around for an infinite amount of time, stretching to infinity suggests much about what would happen inside it.

basically i'm asking what your reason is for saying that infinite time and infinite space leads to the conclusion that everything that is probable will happen. It seems like there needs to be something more that is needed for all possible probabilities to occur.

hooded

10-10-2007, 8:42 AM

@ Ecyor0

Sorry, I guess I was not specific. There is no empirical evidence in the bible relating directly to the existence of God (as this is what the thread was about). Also, I believe there is evidence that the actual date of the writing of Daniel took place sometime around 165 BC. Some historians retain that all of the works of Homer are fiction, others have found ruins which they suggest as a bronze-era Troy. However, the historical findings do not validate the Iliad, they merely suggest that some parts of the Iliad are somewhat historically accurate. You will have difficulty finding someone who will say “all the content of the Bible is 100% false”. But this is all another matter.

Back more towards the topic now. True, the scientific result is based on the observation of the scientist. However this is why strict, concise procedures and records are kept. To be a valid experiment, the results need to be repeatable. Sure, you could just take the scientists’ word on a specific matter, but if you wanted to you could conduct the same (or a similar) experiment, and you should get the same (or at least very similar, within the margin of error) results. This does not hold true for scripture, where the results are not always repeatable and consistent. Try walking on water, it doesn’t happen. Walk into the desert and look/listen to all the bushes. None of them talk and are on fire.

EDITED IN LATER:

Wrong. I need to demonstrate that, assuming certain axioms it is true.

-An axiom is a sentence or proposition that is not proved or demonstrated and is considered as self-evident

What axioms are you proposing? Axioms need to be self-sufficient through definition and semantics for them to be substantial. All theories in natural sciences depend on basic axioms, like results are universal under the same circumstances. The strength of the theory depends on the validity of the axioms. A logical axiom would be something like x=x. It is taken as self evident simply because it is so self evident. If you propose an axiom such as “god exists” from the beginning, then obviously all logical statements that follow will lead to the conclusion that god exists. My point from before is that its unreasonable to use the existence of an entity as an axiom, as there is no evidence to support it.
Even if a person does not believe in any of the theories science proposes, it is still illogical to base their ideas on a negative proof. You could make an axiom like “I am the president”, and just assume it is self-evident, but this would defeat the purpose. I could make an axiom which defies possibility like “I can draw square circles”, and this would defeat the purpose even more. The axioms need to either have basis in prior logic, or be self sufficient through definition and semantics.

The other half of the definition was demonstration. You claim that I need empirical evidence only because of my belief system. I claim that if you make proper axioms, empirical evidence is demanded by the definition of logic, in the demonstration section.

Back to the gravity example. The axiom would be "objects fall when unsupported". A statement would be made such as "the objects fall because of the attraction between the masses of the object and the earth" this statement would be then demonstrated with repeatable results.

If the axiom was made that “undetectable goblins push objects down”, gravitation theory would obviously be wrong because it does not match up with the axiom. However this axiom is not self-evident and will need more support than just the statement itself.

True, everyone has their own interpretation of logical statements, and if more than one theory is plausible, and both have sufficient evidence it is up to that individual to decide which statement to go with, however there are rules, guidelines, laws to logic. A fallacious statement made by person A is just as fallacious as if it was made by person B.

Furthermore, if a person considers the existance of god self-evident, they will not be able to make a logical argument in support of the existance god because it is merely their first assumption.

Tech

10-10-2007, 2:16 PM

You keep assuming that my axioms are the "undetectable goblins" or that I start out with the fact that God exists. Yet you keep overlooking the things such as, the universe is infinite, human knowledge is flawed/incomplete, science is in constant flux, the Bible remains consistent, the Bible has answers for big questions, science cannot give answers for every question.

Science currently confirms all of these things. Now using those axioms, instead of the undetectable goblins, is the existence of God a viable logical outcome. Now don't confuse it with the only outcome, and don't say that science doesn't support it (because science is in constant flux, so currently science may not support it). Using just those beliefs as a basis, can God be a logical answer?

WhatIsStarcraft

10-10-2007, 3:07 PM

I wrote in the 'why religion' thread that mankind needed a replacement for their father, and that God was the replacement. Don't want to rewrite the post, and I didn't say I believed in that. That was just a guy in the 1800th century.

Well, people have wondered litterally for millennia if there is a God, and how he created the universe, and also where he is. In the Koran it says he is beyond the seventh heaven, basically, if you would come to the seventh heaven (and only the best of the best of the good guys do ever come there) you would see where God's 'realm', or house or, whatever you would call it, is.

And why God?

He is the creator of the universe, an allmighty entity which never get tired or bored. And Judeism, Islam and Christianity has very famous books saying that there is a God, and that he is allmighty. Just that it is said in different ways, but all three ways point in the direction that there is a God.

Feels like there is something that i've forgotten, but I can't remember what it was?

Well, this will do for now.

hooded

10-10-2007, 4:45 PM

You claim the following axioms:

Science is in constant flux
Science cannot provide static answers
Religion provides static answers

And from previous posts, I am going to assume that you are open to the possibility of more than one religion. You even are open to the possibility of the FSM, and claim it is equally probable. Because of this, and the fact that religious answers do not need empirical evidence, I therefore add the next statement.

All religious answers are equally likely.

In Christianity, genesis 1:1, God creates the universe.
Now suppose someone was to make a new religion arbitrarily, claiming that in their holy book, book one, chapter one, God did not create the universe.
Therefore it is equally likely that God did and did not create the universe, based on these two religious responses. Is it truly reasonable that all possible outcomes have the same probability? If not how can your argument distinguish one religion from another?

Now take out the assumption that religious answers are equally likely, and we are back to:

Science is in constant flux
Science cannot provide static answers
Religion provides static answers

Science changes because it adapts new theories which better fit with observable results. Your argument is if science was non-changing, but remained static it would be more logical to support? I cannot agree, but this is all irrelevant. The question is “is there a logical reason for the belief in god”. This leaves only “religion provides static answers’’. Can these answers truly be derived through logic?

As I said before, logical progression start from a single assumption. The only possible axiom I can see being used to start the web of knowledge is the assumption there is nothing. This is the only assumption I can think of that requires nothing to verify it. If something was to verify it, there would be something, and thus the axiom is false. Now because we move to verify the axiom, we falsify it. From this we can conclude there is something. The fact that there is something is now an inference and then becomes an axiom for future argument.

Just look at the wording of religious texts (such as the Bible). God was there “in the beginning”. Sounds like an assumption of God is built upon. Now ignore the fact that science is constantly changing. This is irrelevant in the discussion of whether religious belief can have a logical basis. Can you develop a logical reason for faith?

As I said before, religions can arbitrarily assign answers, as seen in my argument #1. Science cannot arbitrarily assign answers, because it follows the guide of logic. It is illogical to arbitrarily assign an answer. The answer, if logical, must be developed from known inferences, with valid demonstrations (taken from your definitions of logic).

is the existence of God a viable logical outcome

Using your axioms, I can conclude that god is a viable outcome, but not a logical one.

Tech

10-11-2007, 1:21 PM

Yes, as we've already gone over a few times, every claim is equally probable in an infinite universe. Anyone can make up any religion they want. Their religion would be just as probable as any other, it just wouldn't be as well founded, and not as many people would buy into it as a religion that had been around for thousands of years. Yet as science has proven time and time again, just because a belief is popular doesn't mean it's the right one. You could make up the religion of the underground unicorns of mars and you've got the same probability of being correct as any other claim, yet that doesn't mean that you'll get many people to believe you.

As for science being more logical if it didn't change, well that wouldn't really be science anymore now would it. The point about science constantly changing was to point out how illogical it is to base your whole view on life and the universe upon something that at any moment can turn itself inside out with one simple new discovery. If a politician were to change his mind about something every time he gave a speech, people would consider it ridiculous to even think of voting for them. If an architect proposed to you that you could get a better view of the ocean from your home if you would build it directly on the beach, you'd call him crazy. A shifting foundation to build off of, in architecture, politics, and belief systems just doesn't seem to make much since.

The fact that there is something is now an inference and then becomes an axiom for future argument.

Then that brings up the question of when did "something" begin to exist, and if there was nothing before, then what created the something? But if there was something to create it, then there wasn't really nothing now was there. Hence infinity. I fail to see what this paragraph brought up that was new. The axiom I started with was that the universe is infinite, not that there was either nothing or something.

God was there “in the beginning”. Sounds like an assumption of God is built upon. Now ignore the fact that science is constantly changing. This is irrelevant in the discussion of whether religious belief can have a logical basis. Can you develop a logical reason for faith?

First of all "in the beginning", can easily refer to our beginning not the beginning of the universe, because as I've gone over many times, the universe is infinite, so no beginning.

Secondly, you can't ignore the fact that science is constantly changing. If science is fundamentally flawed, and in an infinite universe science would be, then it would be illogical to place your faith in it to make your decisions. Which would then leave religion or a supernatural entity just as logical or more logical a choice than science.

To tell me to ignore the flaws of science and then make my logical argument would be like me telling you to make your logical argument without using science in it at all. Yet either would be impossible to do. If I ignore the flaws of science in my argument then you can use science to discount it, and if you don't use science in your argument then I can ask where's your proof and you don't have any.

hooded

10-11-2007, 1:49 PM

Science's validity is not in question. Only whether it is logical to believe in god. If you want to discuss whether it is logical to believe what the scientific method tells you, either PM me or make a new thread. For now, you can just hear my argument that science, given certain assumptions based on previous science, gives us an answer that is demonstrated through experiment, therefore, being logical. Belief in a specific scientific theory would be logical because you experiment: You develop a theory which fits with the evidence, and them demonstrate that the theory can be applied to a great number of principals. And then using these results as premises for future theories, develop knowledge. It may be changing constantly as new demonstrations disprove certain theories, but it is logical to believe a theory that supports all given evidence in a way that does not conflict with other theories. Such as this:

Premise: Objects are defined by their characteristics.

A is a dog
B is a dog
C is a dog
D has every characteristic in common with C (four legs, fur, teeth, makes the same noise, same color, same size, etc)

Therefore D is a dog.

Tomorrow however genetics will be discovered, and D will be genetically tested (a test for a new, and as of now, undiscovered characteristic), and the results will state that C has a different characteristic than D. However, this does not make it any less logical to believe D is a dog today.

However, this has no bearing on whether or not a theistic belief is logical.

Then that brings up the question of when did "something" begin to exist, and if there was nothing before, then what created the something? But if there was something to create it, then there wasn't really nothing now was there. Hence infinity. I fail to see what this paragraph brought up that was new. The axiom I started with was that the universe is infinite, not that there was either nothing or something.

When did something begin to exist? And if there was nothing before, then what created the something? Obviously something had to create the something, and therefore there was something before. If there was originally nothing, with nothing to create something, then spontaneous generation can occur, in the presence of nothing. Now was a supernatural being generated, or just the natural universe? You can see from my posts before that either god was generated spontaneously, then god created the universe, or the universe was created spontaneously. Occam’s razor now claims that the simplest process is the most likely. The creation of a god who then creates the universe is more complex than simply creating the universe.

The same logic could apply to an infinite universe. Either the universe is infinite, or god is infinite, who then created the universe.

Anoiktos

10-11-2007, 2:10 PM

Curious as to why people believe in god. Certainly some of you believe there is a logical reason to believe in the existence of a creator, lets hear it. Emphasis on the word logical. (I'm not going to be giving a lesson on logic and critical thinking abilities either so no kiddies allowed who might get confused.)
Note: I am not religious, nor have I ever been. It is my belief that should someone wish to be religious, or indeed to believe whatever they wish, this is not my problem and is both acceptable and reasonable unless this belief of theirs harms others' freedoms.

That said:

Religion, Science, and the reasons thereof, a speculative short unstructured essay:

The simplest reason to believe in the existence of a creator is the evidence in point: things exist. From the perspective of someone completely unbiased toward or against science or religion, they are identical: Both propose manners in which to describe and predict the world around them. Science describes it in a more specific, but also more falsifiable manner - one is never entirely sure, with Science, whether a theory is true without exception or not. Religion describes it in a less specific, but also less falsifiable manner - one can always be sure, with Religion, that the religion is true because it describes itself as such.

Thus, just as Newtonian physics, for all their reliability, have been proven insufficient to explain certain phenomena to the same degree as Einsteinian physics, and those proven insufficient to explain things better described by quantum, chaos, or string theory, so these too will eventually be deemed insufficient for a sufficiently arcane purpose.

At the same time, each interpretation of God is, in its own way, complete and infallible; any unreliability is dismissed as the fault of the observer or part of the Divine Purpose. No better theory is needed because the most complete one already exists.

Thus as science becomes more and more complicated, more and more education is required to understand it - it builds a citadel which each new generation must climb in order to watch from its tower, better succeeding at fragmenting society's knowledge than pre-lutheran monks ever were able to do with their monopoly on latin and literacy.

Simultaneously, Religion has, since Luther, sought to make itself increasingly accessible, even from a young age, teaching its concepts in storybook form. Which brings us to the principal difference between religion and science, Mythos vs. Logos;

Both Mythos and Logos mean "word"; Mythos implies a nonliteral meaning, Logos the opposite; both describe the world, though one does so in a general way, leaving gaps for the learner to fill, the other in a specific way, explaining to its learner that they can, perhaps, know everything - but that it will take an infinite amount of time to do so.

To people brought up with searching minds, content with theory and literal abstraction representing a solid whole, to whom the fractal nature of Science is comforting and awesome, Science is God; they accept that someone knows or may eventually know why something works is sufficient for them. For those more content with metaphorical abstraction and intent upon the world before them, less speculative explanations that nevertheless confer important moral lessons and a basic grasp of the theory of the world - religious doctrines, stories, and dogmas -, the religious God is a good place to fall back on when ones' work is done and time is left to wonder about things further from home.

What I am saying, in the end, is that though I was brought up in a nonreligious household, where faith had no purpose, I can see that religion does have a purpose, in any human society where science becomes paramount - not everyone has the time or resource to devote to the study of science, and not everyone is content in believing in a theory that is inherently incomplete, and further intrinsically impossible to grasp, as a fractal, in its entirety from the perspective of a single human.

No - if every human on earth believed only in science, we would have the same problems as religion (and science, if you look) grants us now - blind sheep, following the latest discovery, prophecy, breakthrough, doctrine. Why? Because until all those who are not explorers or pioneers become unnecessary, having been replaced by automatons or the like, it is necessary to have people who have time not spent on science, but instead spent on maintaining the more basic, down-to-earth tenets of human life.

This view may seem pragmatic - I'm essentially saying that some people need to be sheep for society to function - but if you've ever visited a farm, or a luddite society, or a religious society, you'll note that often enough, these people are happy as they are. Were I to explain this in cliché, "Knowledge is power, but ignorance is bliss" would be a woefully inadequate description, being a massive generalization, but that is exactly the point I've made, if you catch my drift.

Edit: The purpose of this post is not, as you warn us not to do above, to debate the validity of science, though it does so in a primitive sense - it is to demonstrate not the logicality of belief in God, but both its purpose and inevitability.

I do not believe in God, but I can learn to respect and salute those who do.

Tech

10-11-2007, 7:48 PM

There's really no need to give me a lesson on the scientific method, I'm fully aware of how it works. Yet you seem to be missing the point of how what is and isn't logical depends on whose point of view you look at it from. You see science as completely logical, change is just part of the process of bettering your beliefs. Someone looking at science from the point of view I brought up, sees that science will never know everything, and in comparison to infinity will know practically nothing. So to this person science is fundamentally flawed in that it will always be held in doubt with everything that it does. Religion at least remains steady about it's claims.

Occam’s razor now claims that the simplest process is the most likely. The creation of a god who then creates the universe is more complex than simply creating the universe.

Now this is the great thing about Occam's razor, when you word things right it will always prove you right. For example God is created, he then creates the universe, is far more simplistic than quarks were created which then created atoms, which then created molecules, which then fused together, and then somehow exploded in a big bang, which then created the universe. Now when I word it that way, doesn't God become more simple than your view?

Science's validity is not in question. Only whether it is logical to believe in god. If you want to discuss whether it is logical to believe what the scientific method tells you, either PM me or make a new thread.

Now apparently you've missed the multiple times where I specifically state that those weren't my actual beliefs, but since this has obviously upset you I'll refrain from posting anymore. It seems the only thing you've gotten out of my posts has been the urge to defend science from purely hypothetical arguments, so it would seem my time has been wasted.

@Anoiktos: I have no issues with the content of your post, yet if you do not wish to offend those of the religious persuasion, you may want to look at your wording regarding who you are calling ignorantly blissful. I believe you've got a great point, and I would rather not have it discounted by those who would be insulted by that comment.

hooded

10-11-2007, 8:39 PM

Now this is the great thing about Occam's razor, when you word things right it will always prove you right. For example God is created, he then creates the universe, is far more simplistic than quarks were created which then created atoms, which then created molecules, which then fused together, and then somehow exploded in a big bang, which then created the universe. Now when I word it that way, doesn't God become more simple than your view?

No, if you believe in the traditional meaning of God, God is omnipresent. The sum of the parts are never more complex than the whole. Only less than or equal to.

Or, if you like, you could phrase it as god created quarks which then created atoms, which then created molecules, which then fused together. I cannot see how adding God into the mix does not add another level of complexity to this. Unless you refute the existence of quarks or something (which would remove a level of complexity from the theistic argument), at which point it is removed from both orders of development. Just take any theory of creation, and add God to the front of it, and this adds another level. Although Occam’s razor does have faults in that it is not always easy to determine which solution is the most simplistic, however it is reasonable to assume that the universe was formed by way A -> B -> C. Now you can either accept A -> B -> C as spontaneous or eternal, or you could accept God -> A -> B -> C as spontaneous or eternal.

Now apparently you've missed the multiple times where I specifically state that those weren't my actual beliefs, but since this has obviously upset you I'll refrain from posting anymore. It seems the only thing you've gotten out of my posts has been the urge to defend science from purely hypothetical arguments, so it would seem my time has been wasted.

I know you’re just playing the devils advocate here, but I do not see how it is necessary to defend the scientific process to determine whether or not a belief in god is logical. I suppose you could argue a belief in god would be the only alternative to science, but what about alternative non-theistic theories, such as plasma cosmology, or spontaneous generation? Even though the modern science does not support these as strongly as it does the big bang, these would be possible alternatives.

Anoiktos

10-11-2007, 9:16 PM

@Anoiktos: I have no issues with the content of your post, yet if you do not wish to offend those of the religious persuasion, you may want to look at your wording regarding who you are calling ignorantly blissful.
I'm equally insulting scientists by referring to them as men atop a citadel. If the religious are sensitive enough to consider 'ignorantly blissful' enough of an insult to disregard the rest of my post as well as the compliment that that phrase, in context, actually implies, then it is their choice to be offended by it. I dislike trying not to insult people, despite the literal truth of a statement, merely because they choose to take offense at something - such a task is impossible. I believe you will find that this point of view is strongly reinforced by the content in the above post.

That said, thank you for the warning.

Tech

10-11-2007, 9:25 PM

The addition of a god does not make things more complicated. A god is supernatural, meaning that the natural order of things does not apply to them. A god doesn't have to create quarks to create atoms, they can simply create an end product with all parts already intact in one simple step. So it isn't either A->B->C-> or God->A->B->C->. It is either A->B->C-> or God->C.

As for these alternative non-theistic theories, most of them rely on science as the base to their claims. Yet even those that don't rely on science at all are just as probable under this belief, however I don't know much about them so can't specifically comment on how they would fare under this system. I would take the time to look up more about some of them but I don't have time at the moment, I'll look into them later.

GenocideAlive

10-11-2007, 10:33 PM

The addition of a god does not make things more complicated. A god is supernatural, meaning that the natural order of things does not apply to them.
I would beg you to reread this multiple times and ask yourself if it makes sense from the perspective of someone trying to argue against this. Your next paragraph is equally mind-bending--you basically state that absolutely nothing is "beyond belief" with an imagination, and holds the same credibility.

Tech

10-12-2007, 12:54 AM

The point of my posts was not meant to be a debate about the legitimacy of this claim. It's not a real claim as far as I know, at least I've never met anyone whose held to this belief. It isn't supposed to be argued against. The reason I even brought this up was to address the problem of logic being confused with science. I've noticed it in a few topics before this one. People are calling arguments illogical based purely on the fact that scientific evidence doesn't support the claim. Sure the arguments may not be scientific but that's not the question here. A person of science will never find a religious person's beliefs to be logical, because based on their belief system it isn't. If you believe that decisions can only be made based on solid physical evidence then faith in the supernatural will always seem illogical. Yet if you believe that there is more to the universe than what you can see with your eyes, random coincidence, and unexplainable wonders then god is a logical explanation to you. Logic is a matter of perspectives, not a matter of fact.

Anoiktos

10-12-2007, 11:29 AM

Though having read the majority of your other posts, I disagree with the general bent of your discussion, Tech, that last post was dead on with respect to a couple things.

-Science requires a set of postulates, or beliefs, that one bases the rest of its theory on.
-As any philosopher will attest, this means that their system has the integral fault of not starting at null assumptions, and thus as a belief system based on assumption, is not necessarily implicitly good.

However,

"If you believe that decisions can only be made based on solid physical evidence than faith in the supernatural will always seem illogical." - this is patently, obviously incorrect. Students of Science are subjected to 'faith not based on solid physical evidence' quite a bit of the time, under the belief that their faith is grounded on someone elses' solid physical evidence. While much of it may make sense or be provable through lab experiments (the existence of cells, mitochondria, etc) much of it is much less provable without equipment out of the price range of most schools (electron microscopes and the like), besides which the era of television and the like makes, for a science-disbeliever, a conspiracy easy to suggest.

Your last assertion is correct, but only insofar as stating that anything is a matter of perspectives is correct; Logic, to an individual, is based on perspective. Geometrical proof is based on specific rules, as is scientific proof. These kinds of logic are much less perspective based by necessity, because the intent of any scientific experiment is that it can be replicated exactly with the same results in a different location or at a later time. By definition, any supernatural/unseen religious wonder or coincidence cannot be repeated or replicated exactly anywhere else or at any other time, aside from those implicit in the existence of the world.

This last caveat is telling - "aside from those implicit in the existence of the world" implies things like the existence of trees, humans, and the like - some of which cannot be understood by conventional science just yet (for example, the method of thought processes of humans). Various theories abound, but because they have all been falsified or have counterexamples, they are dismissed.

This brings to head the functional difference in logic between religion and science, that of falsifiability. One CAN disprove a scientific theory - it is done all the time, from (as I stated elsewhere) Einsteinian physics replacing Newtonian, or string theory/etc replacing Einsteinian.

This sort of progress cannot happen for religion, which brings me back to my previous post - both methods have advantages and disadvantages in a society, and both have purposes, but I find no incentive to see religion as logical in and of itself, though I do find believing in it, perhaps, logical. Why? Because regardless of whether you believe in it or not, the exact same things (from a has-ever-verifiably-happened viewpoint) happen. With science, if you believe and practice its doctrines/dogma, the theory may change and you may figure out how to do things you otherwise could not. (as happened to Chandreskar, for example, despite his youth).

The furthest Religion gets to actual change in the knowledge of the system is things like Islam, where someone decides to start a sect based off of one religion (christianity) and try to bring everyone into it. Unfortunately, this, due to the implicit belief in religion that one is correct regardless of any debate, and that to contradict ones' opinions is blasphemous, this invariably sparks war (or at least harsh words.)

Examples? The Jewish/Christian/Islam split of the exact same religion, with different prophets. Islam even concedes that christ was a prophet, just not the last prophet. Yet they fight over which prophet is the last prophet, and due to the nonfalsifiability of either claim, no victor can be found. The same thing in science would eventually result in a victor based on which theory was closest to verifiable truth.

Oblongato

10-12-2007, 12:12 PM

The basic problem with the idea of god(s) is that it comes from nowhere. There is nothing (logical or scientific), anywhere, to suggest that all of the religions in the world are not simply made-up stories about the origin of the universe and the purpose of mankind. The absurdity of the fact that the religious (or just believers if you prefer) can laugh at the "creation myths" of other cultures while adhering to their own (equally logically and scientifically unfounded) creation myth is a perfect example of the reason why religion exists at all: humans are experts at switching off whatever logical and scientific abilities they have.

Our logical skills are simply not active most of the time, and we choose when and where to apply them. Clearly, believers switch off these abilities when it comes to matters surrounding their beliefs.

I am not saying that there is no value to religious philosophy or no subjective or personal reason to believe in god. But honestly, to a non-believer with any kind of logical ability, the idea of the Christian, Muslim, Hindu or whatever god is no less absurd than Hooded's underground unicorn civilization or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Contained within every supposedly logical argument demonstrating the existence of a supreme being there is a rather large smoke-and-mirrors element trying to draw our attention away from at least one massive, false assumption.

Be a believer if you like, but excuse me for rejecting absolutely the notion that there could be any logical or scientific reason for such a belief.