774 replies to this topic

[Lister]

You’re really pissed off with the whole sources thing hey? I’m assuming you cite sources because it allows you to find the most rigid form of an argument you support and then you use that to hold up your points. Do it yourself. I restate my arguments all the time; you know why? I do so because I enjoy providing content to a discussion as well as receiving.

So looking over your response here to a large amount of my questions you’ve deflected. Now am I the teacher here and you’re the student? Or are you the student and I am the teacher? What’s your whole point of being on this forum anyways?

“I won’t repeat my arguments made elsewhere. Prove it.” Dodged
“You need to read where we argued this elsewhere.” Dodged again
“Think for yourself I think you said.” And another Dodge
“Life cannot exist without DNA Can it?” Epic dodge there Shadow.

I’m here to have a discussion, are you? If you’re here to criticize and that’s it then I guess platypus was right. If you’re here to lecture then make your points and leave! Although if you’re not willing to restate an argument you’ve already made there’s not much left for you to do is there?

In all the time I’ve been speaking with you on this forum it would appear that I have been the most open minded person speaking to you. Now in all that time so far you’ve brought up that DNA might be evidence for the existence of God, You’ve brought up your history with religion, and you’ve posted a whole lot of other peoples work. My Youth group leader at the church was a million times more inspiring than you Shadow and he was in his early 20’s.

What are you trying to achieve? I would have thought it would be spreading the word of God but you’ve done none of that.

[platypus]

No rational person should ever engage a creationist or a flat-Earther in a "debate".

You arn't rational with your ad hominem attacks and name calling so this must not be you.

How come not debating crackpots like flat-earthers is not "rational"? Some people are too stupid for a debate and that is a fact.

[shadowhawk]

No rational person should ever engage a creationist or a flat-Earther in a "debate".

You arn't rational with your ad hominem attacks and name calling so this must not be you.

How come not debating crackpots like flat-earthers is not "rational"? Some people are too stupid for a debate and that is a fact.

I can go back through your past posts and they are all ad hominem like this one. Full of logical fallacies and name calling. Rave on, not interested.

[Lister]

No rational person should ever engage a creationist or a flat-Earther in a "debate".

You arn't rational with your ad hominem attacks and name calling so this must not be you.

How come not debating crackpots like flat-earthers is not "rational"? Some people are too stupid for a debate and that is a fact.

I can go back through your past posts and they are all ad hominem like this one. Full of logical fallacies and name calling. Rave on, not interested.

If you're not interested don't reply. There is much you can teach me Shadow but even at my young age I can say you have much to learn.

[shadowhawk]

Lister: If you're not interested don't reply. There is much you can teach me Shadow but even at my young age I can say you have much to learn.

So true. I agree.

[hooter]

The acquired belief in a supreme, controlling, totalitarian overlord (deity), and especially its obviously counterfactual subbelief "creationism", are in fact energized manifestations of collective unconscious archetypes, which are best described as cognitive tendencies and templates that were imprinted by continuous evolution of the human brain. To say they are genetic knowledge would be a minor hyperbole, but this is essentially their structure. They are archaic remnants of the mind that are shaped by the history of our species.

Some of these symbolic archetypes would be: the wise old man, the mother, the hero, the shadow, etc.

They are in essence an interpretative layer by which unconscious data can be represented. This is where things get interesting: the general behavior of these manifestations compensates for factors of conscious thoughts. If someone has feelings of inferiority, they will dream of being royalty or having magic powers, etc. If they have feelings of superiority, they will dream of being utterly decrepit or other metaphors.

Now the conscious and unshakable belief in "GOD" is not a logically arrived conclusion that one assumes. There is no point where you just look at a list of facts and go ok, the result equals god. This is certainly always a method of backtracking after the statement has been made. This is a reversed reasoning process: first the belief, then the rationalization.

But then whence comes this idea? From the archetypes themselves. The 'supreme controlling being' is an archetype in itself, however it is usually submerged in the unconscious. To cause this idea to surface requires energy to be sublimated in the same contextual and symbolic association that it stands for. Simply put, something has to be repressed in order to surface it. (Look at what eventually happens to the sexual preferences and mental state of priests, megachurch leaders and such and just let that sink in for a moment)

The question is what is sublimated, or involuntarily repressed, in order to surface this completely calcified ideology and place it as an unbreakable pillar into the foundation of one's conscious life?

A few examples, not even close to all of them though:

• Feeling a lack of control over one's life
• Feeling a lack of control over one's death
• Not being able to face death
• Deep feelings of emptyness
• Deep feelings of inferiority
• The need for paternal guidance, i.e. an insufficient disconnect from one's parents.
• The profound realization that everything that happens in reality is just as it is for the sake of being so. No safety net. Things just are.

Etc. Fill in the blanks.

ad hominem

'An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or unrelated belief of the person supporting it.'

I am not singling out anyone, nor am I pointing out negative or unrelated characteristics. All of these are legitimate theological topics, and since belief inarguably results from the human brain, this is only a natural conclusion. Who else would be preaching?

Consider that the only way for god to be expressed is for people to say so. There is no other expression of god rather than people TALKING about it. There are no experiments or outside phenomena that clearly scream 'god' or we would all be Christians now wouldn't we.

Intrinsically 'spiritual' experiences and such are inarguably tied to the brain, since they can be induced with substances or heavy meditation. To argue their psychological significance is a legitimate concern even addressed in modern theology by people who support your view. Thus you are effectively disagreeing with people who are not only religious but STUDY the philosophy of religion itself.

Humans wrote the bible, humans are priests, humans spread the faith, and humans use it to justify evil acts and deeds. Religion claims that HUMANS are the cleanest and purest race in the universe, and god's chosen children. Would you argue that this is NOT an anthropocentric belief? Really sir?

Your quick dismissal of my argument as 'ad hominem', WITHOUT ANY JUSTIFICATION I MIGHT ADD (just two words and you're ready to move on), is quite infantile. But I understand that if you were to engage in an honest intellectual dialog on my argument, you would find yourself extremely low on counterarguments and reaching for rationalizations. It would be extraordinarily difficult for you to justify your viewpoint. This was exactly my intention, and you walked directly into it. Smack dab into the middle, and I'm glad other people are calling you out on it.

I don't blame you, it would really be a hopeless attempt to try and argument against it. One would not be able to sound coherent or even remotely believable, so the only way out is to dismiss it by screaming fallacy and ignoring the post entirely. Maybe you might try to just restate your position 'omg fallacy', again without clear justification, or maybe you will post six hundred links, but I would honestly be more surprised if a cavalry of armored pigs on jetpacks flew past my window than seeing you address the argument in an honest post.

Why so evasive?

Edited by hooter, 29 September 2012 - 09:33 PM.

[Lister]

(This is all Off Topic… Oh well cry me a River)

Shadow did post an honest (from the heart) response yesterday. The reason he did is because I haven’t been trying to lure him out on that edge of “troubled truths” religious views often appear to reside upon.

And I know some of you may view this as a “well why do I have to extend a courtesy to him if he won’t do the same for me?” The simple an honest truth is that in this environment (a forum about life extension) Shadow is already going to be at a disadvantage. Though I can’t prove it, it’s a logical connection that those interested in life extension are going to be less religious due to their drive to push beyond a natural life.

I think we as Agnostic and Atheistic people owe Shadow some respect for his courage with regards to being an open Christian on this type of forum. Does that then mean we agree with him? NO! That means we treat his views with respect and discuss them as adults; pushing past silly disagreements.

It’s easy to tell a religious person that their views are nonsense. It’s easy to find a story in the bible and say “Do you really believe that BS?” But then it’s also easy to kick mud in the eyes of a weaker person than you. In the end you’re just a bully and I have no respect for bullies.

[shadowhawk]

The acquired belief in a supreme, controlling, totalitarian overlord (deity), and especially its obviously counterfactual subbelief "creationism", are in fact energized manifestations of collective unconscious archetypes, which are best described as cognitive tendencies and templates that were imprinted by continuous evolution of the human brain. To say they are genetic knowledge would be a minor hyperbole, but this is essentially their structure. They are archaic remnants of the mind that are shaped by the history of our species.

Some of these symbolic archetypes would be: the wise old man, the mother, the hero, the shadow, etc.

They are in essence an interpretative layer by which unconscious data can be represented. This is where things get interesting: the general behavior of these manifestations compensates for factors of conscious thoughts. If someone has feelings of inferiority, they will dream of being royalty or having magic powers, etc. If they have feelings of superiority, they will dream of being utterly decrepit or other metaphors.

Now the conscious and unshakable belief in "GOD" is not a logically arrived conclusion that one assumes. There is no point where you just look at a list of facts and go ok, the result equals god. This is certainly always a method of backtracking after the statement has been made. This is a reversed reasoning process: first the belief, then the rationalization.

But then whence comes this idea? From the archetypes themselves. The 'supreme controlling being' is an archetype in itself, however it is usually submerged in the unconscious. To cause this idea to surface requires energy to be sublimated in the same contextual and symbolic association that it stands for. Simply put, something has to be repressed in order to surface it. (Look at what eventually happens to the sexual preferences and mental state of priests, megachurch leaders and such and just let that sink in for a moment)

The question is what is sublimated, or involuntarily repressed, in order to surface this completely calcified ideology and place it as an unbreakable pillar into the foundation of one's conscious life?

A few examples, not even close to all of them though:

• Feeling a lack of control over one's life
• Feeling a lack of control over one's death
• Not being able to face death
• Deep feelings of emptyness
• Deep feelings of inferiority
• The need for paternal guidance, i.e. an insufficient disconnect from one's parents.
• The profound realization that everything that happens in reality is just as it is for the sake of being so. No safety net. Things just are.

Etc. Fill in the blanks.

ad hominem

'An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or unrelated belief of the person supporting it.'

I am not singling out anyone, nor am I pointing out negative or unrelated characteristics. All of these are legitimate theological topics, and since belief inarguably results from the human brain, this is only a natural conclusion. Who else would be preaching?

Consider that the only way for god to be expressed is for people to say so. There is no other expression of god rather than people TALKING about it. There are no experiments or outside phenomena that clearly scream 'god' or we would all be Christians now wouldn't we.

Intrinsically 'spiritual' experiences and such are inarguably tied to the brain, since they can be induced with substances or heavy meditation. To argue their psychological significance is a legitimate concern even addressed in modern theology by people who support your view. Thus you are effectively disagreeing with people who are not only religious but STUDY the philosophy of religion itself.

Humans wrote the bible, humans are priests, humans spread the faith, and humans use it to justify evil acts and deeds. Religion claims that HUMANS are the cleanest and purest race in the universe, and god's chosen children. Would you argue that this is NOT an anthropocentric belief? Really sir?

Your quick dismissal of my argument as 'ad hominem', WITHOUT ANY JUSTIFICATION I MIGHT ADD (just two words and you're ready to move on), is quite infantile. But I understand that if you were to engage in an honest intellectual dialog on my argument, you would find yourself extremely low on counterarguments and reaching for rationalizations. It would be extraordinarily difficult for you to justify your viewpoint. This was exactly my intention, and you walked directly into it. Smack dab into the middle, and I'm glad other people are calling you out on it.

I don't blame you, it would really be a hopeless attempt to try and argument against it. One would not be able to sound coherent or even remotely believable, so the only way out is to dismiss it by screaming fallacy and ignoring the post entirely. Maybe you might try to just restate your position 'omg fallacy', again without clear justification, or maybe you will post six hundred links, but I would honestly be more surprised if a cavalry of armored pigs on jetpacks flew past my window than seeing you address the argument in an honest post.

Why so evasive?

Have a good day.

[NeuroGuy]

No rational person should ever engage a creationist or a flat-Earther in a "debate".

You arn't rational with your ad hominem attacks and name calling so this must not be you.

How come not debating crackpots like flat-earthers is not "rational"? Some people are too stupid for a debate and that is a fact.

I understand where you're going with this and I share your frustration, but you're flawed in your rationale. To not rationally debate with someone on the assumption that they're too stupid for a debate is to rely on a false a priori assumption that is based on the fallacy of the undistributed middle. In other words, while it may be true that you have run into a few stupid creationists (which is what we're really talking about here), it doesn't follow that all creationists are stupid. On the contrary, there are numerous creationists who have multiple doctorates in varying physical sciences, as well as creationists with IQ's in the top .0001 percent of the population (as in smarter then you and I, and statistically everyone else on this forum). Tal Brooke is one of my favorite examples, a researcher at Berkley who is a member of the Mega Society. These are all incredibly intelligent individuals who believe in the existence of God, thus refuting the idea that all creationists are stupid.

Also, I absolutely concur with Shadowhawk; most of the arguments presented within this topic have been merely ad hominem attacks against Christians and theists. Just something to consider: these are generally the type of arguments that people make when they are unable to logically refute a belief, and yet are unwilling to cognitively assent to that belief. Out of frustration, they instead turn and attack the person making the argument rather than the argument itself.

I think we as Agnostic and Atheistic people owe Shadow some respect for his courage with regards to being an open Christian on this type of forum. Does that then mean we agree with him? NO! That means we treat his views with respect and discuss them as adults; pushing past silly disagreements.

I absolutely agree Lister, and I commend you for this attitude! Being a Christian myself, the resistance here against rationale discourse concerning God is rather distasteful (not to mention intellectually bankrupt), and your comment was a very welcome sight.

Edited by NeuroGuy, 07 March 2013 - 08:00 PM.

[platypus]

How come not debating crackpots like flat-earthers is not "rational"? Some people are too stupid for a debate and that is a fact.

I understand where you're going with this and I share your frustration, but you're flawed in your rationale. To not rationally debate with someone on the assumption that they're too stupid for a debate is to rely on a false a priori assumption that is based on the fallacy of the undistributed middle. In other words, while it may be true that you have run into a few stupid creationists (which is what we're really talking about here), it doesn't follow that all creationists are stupid. On the contrary, there are numerous creationists who have multiple doctorates in varying physical sciences, as well as creationists with IQ's in the top .0001 percent of the population (as in smarter then you and I, and statistically everyone else on this forum). Tal Brooke is one of my favorite examples, a researcher at Berkley who is a member of the Mega Society. These are all incredibly intelligent individuals who believe in the existence of God, thus refuting the idea that all creationists are stupid.

High IQ does not shield one from delusions. However, top scientists are overwhelmingly atheist/agnostic, which shows that when critical thinking is used, the beliefs in gods go down.

I absolutely agree Lister, and I commend you for this attitude! Being a Christian myself, the resistance here against rationale discourse concerning God is rather distasteful (not to mention intellectually bankrupt), and your comment was a very welcome sight.

What does "rational discourse" mean in this context? That one disregards irrational sources like the Bible and the rest?

[NeuroGuy]

How come not debating crackpots like flat-earthers is not "rational"? Some people are too stupid for a debate and that is a fact.

I understand where you're going with this and I share your frustration, but you're flawed in your rationale. To not rationally debate with someone on the assumption that they're too stupid for a debate is to rely on a false a priori assumption that is based on the fallacy of the undistributed middle. In other words, while it may be true that you have run into a few stupid creationists (which is what we're really talking about here), it doesn't follow that all creationists are stupid. On the contrary, there are numerous creationists who have multiple doctorates in varying physical sciences, as well as creationists with IQ's in the top .0001 percent of the population (as in smarter then you and I, and statistically everyone else on this forum). Tal Brooke is one of my favorite examples, a researcher at Berkley who is a member of the Mega Society. These are all incredibly intelligent individuals who believe in the existence of God, thus refuting the idea that all creationists are stupid.

High IQ does not shield one from delusions. However, top scientists are overwhelmingly atheist/agnostic, which shows that when critical thinking is used, the beliefs in gods go down.

I absolutely agree Lister, and I commend you for this attitude! Being a Christian myself, the resistance here against rationale discourse concerning God is rather distasteful (not to mention intellectually bankrupt), and your comment was a very welcome sight.

What does "rational discourse" mean in this context? That one disregards irrational sources like the Bible and the rest?

You're absolutely correct platypus that high IQ doesn't shield one from delusions; however, you're attacking a straw man as I was never making that assertion to begin with. My only point in referencing high IQ creationists was to counter the false a priori assumption that all creationists are too stupid to debate. Nothing more, nothing less.

That said, your appeal to "top scientists" is logically weak, and I'll do my best to explain why. The determinative conclusion that "when critical thinking is used, the beliefs in gods go down" is a logical non sequitur: it does not unconditionally follow from your premise that "top scientists are overwhelmingly atheist/agnostic," even assuming that the premise is true. The only conclusion that necessarily follows is that "when critical thinking is used, some individuals' beliefs in gods go down." That isn't enough to further conclude that "therefore, there is no rational case for God" (which is the insinuation you are making). Moreover, you're making a fallacious appeal to authority. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, lets assume that in your premise the "top scientists" you're referring to are actually experts in a relevant field of expertise to the topic at hand (Philosophy of Religion), rather than scientists in other fields that are simply opposed to creationism. Making this assumption, it is true that the majority of top scientists are not Christians or even theists. However, the size of the minority of Christians and theists is not an insignificant quantity. That said, there is no definitive consensus within the relevant field of expertise to definitively conclude that God does not exist, and it therefore remains an open and legitimate question to be debated. Therefore, the premise you have laid out is insufficient to conclude the insinuations you seem to be making, namely that: 1. Belief in God is a delusion, and; 2. Debating his existence is futile and unnecessary.

To answer your question, the term "rational discourse" in this context is axiomatic; it refers to an open and objective dialogue pursued with the intent of obtaining the truth. We certainly both have our own biases and presuppositions, but there is still the ability to critically analyze not only each others beliefs, but the presuppositions behind those beliefs that all too often go unquestioned. I can tell you now, I do not hold a single belief or presupposition that I am unwilling to critically analyze, which is why I'm here unashamedly laying out my belief in God and the risen Christ for them to be scrutinized. Are you comfortable enough with the competence of your beliefs to do the same, and to courteously exchange arguments in like manner?

Edited by NeuroGuy, 08 March 2013 - 08:23 PM.

[platypus]

You're absolutely correct platypus that high IQ doesn't shield one from delusions; however, you're attacking a straw man as I was never making that assertion to begin with. My only point in referencing high IQ creationists was to counter the false a priori assumption that all creationists are too stupid to debate. Nothing more, nothing less.

People who take cre(a)tionism seriously are literally to stupid to engage in a debate, no matter what their IQ is. If all the the available evidence all around us does not convince them, nothing will as they've left the so-called reality behind them.

That said, your appeal to "top scientists" is logically weak, and I'll do my best to explain why. The determinative conclusion that "when critical thinking is used, the beliefs in gods go down" is a logical non sequitur: it does not unconditionally follow from your premise that "top scientists are overwhelmingly atheist/agnostic," even assuming that the premise is true. The only conclusion that necessarily follows is that "when critical thinking is used, some individuals' beliefs in gods go down.

That should be "most individuals", not "some".

That isn't enough to further conclude that "therefore, there is no rational case for God" (which is the insinuation you are making). Moreover, you're making a fallacious appeal to authority. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, lets assume that in your premise the "top scientists" you're referring to are actually experts in a relevant field of expertise to the topic at hand (Philosophy of Religion), rather than scientists in other fields that are simply opposed to creationism.

Philosophy is less relevant than physics, neurosciences, psychology/psychiatry and perhaps even ethnobotany in my opinion, but I'm a layman.

1. Belief in God is a delusion, and; 2. Debating his existence is futile and unnecessary.

It is self-evidently a delusion to me, in the same way that many theists say that gods self-evidently exist.

To answer your question, the term "rational discourse" in this context is axiomatic; it refers to an open and objective dialogue pursued with the intent of obtaining the truth. We certainly both have our own biases and presuppositions, but there is still the ability to critically analyze not only each others beliefs, but the presuppositions behind those beliefs that all too often go unquestioned. I can tell you now, I do not hold a single belief or presupposition that I am unwilling to critically analyze, which is why I'm here unashamedly laying out my belief in God and the risen Christ for them to be scrutinized. Are you comfortable enough with the competence of your beliefs to do the same, and to courteously exchange arguments in like manner?

The idea sounds ok, but I've been scarred by many pointless discussions in the past. I doubt that I will have the patience or time for a drawn-out discussion but I'm willing to hear you out.

[Lister]

Philosophy is less relevant than physics, neurosciences, psychology/psychiatry and perhaps even ethnobotany in my opinion, but I'm a layman.

Philosophy is the Study of what we know. It is the father of all modern science. To say that it is less relevant than those scientific fields is to say that the tree is less relevant than its branches. As ideas are studied by philosophers and we find more accurate information those ideas break off to form their own scientific fields.

As far as smarts go I think you’ll find the majority of smart people have an “evolved” sense of spirituality. It’s pretty obvious to most anyone with half a brain that we know little to nothing about almost everything. We cannot prove God exists just as we cannot prove their non-existence. With this in mind any rational person must leave God and much of religion as a possibility. Even scientology, while seemingly a crazy cult, cannot be completely disproven.

For a “smart” person the idea that religion is wrong is, at times, just as likely as it being right. Plus the absolutely astoundingly HUGE size of space allows for a near infinite amount of possibilities. Still though an unknown is not proof of something; thus it’s all possible but not certain by any means.

The only people I’ve met who will flat out deny any form of God/Religion/Spirituality are usually pretty limited intellectually. It’s as though they’re still working on a very basic level and haven’t the strength to make the leap to a higher state of thought. Even Richard Dawkins does not deny the possible existence of God and the possible truths of religion. Richard spends all his time trying to prove that much of religion is harmful and in that he may be right; although I’m not sure whether the good outweighs the bad or not.

Creationism at its core is based on scientific unknowns such as DNA. As they are unknowns we cannot deny their possible intelligent origins. Though, as I said above, not knowing something is not valid proof of something else; we just don’t know. Creationists may be wrong and they may be right too. Calling all creationists crackpots or generally insulting their intelligence only serves to reflect badly on you. Some of them probably are a tad nuts but in the end, a stereotype is a stereotype.

TL;DR – God may exist, or may not. Faith is to believe in something without proof. So if you believe that God exists, or does not, you have faith in that belief as you have no facts. To be rational is to weigh the odds and thus if you believe in the existence of God or the non-existence of God to be a truth you are not rational.

[platypus]

TL;DR – God may exist, or may not. Faith is to believe in something without proof. So if you believe that God exists, or does not, you have faith in that belief as you have no facts. To be rational is to weigh the odds and thus if you believe in the existence of God or the non-existence of God to be a truth you are not rational.

Based on the available evidence I see the existence of gods that meddle with human business extremely unlikely. Therefore it's rational for me to believe they don't exist.

[NeuroGuy]

You had a lot of excellent points Lister. I'd like to add to a few of your points however, as well as counter a few statements.

Philosophy is less relevant than physics, neurosciences, psychology/psychiatry and perhaps even ethnobotany in my opinion, but I'm a layman.

Philosophy is the Study of what we know. It is the father of all modern science. To say that it is less relevant than those scientific fields is to say that the tree is less relevant than its branches. As ideas are studied by philosophers and we find more accurate information those ideas break off to form their own scientific fields.

This was well stated. To be fair to Platypus though, those various scientific fields certainly are relevant to the topic at hand, yet only indirectly. Science is only related to the topic of God by providing data points that makes up the premises of philosophic arguments. It is the philosophic arguments themselves that are the direct means of discerning a truth value in this regards. For example, the astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe is expanding, which later led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. The scientific conclusion that the universe had a beginning, in turn, was used by philosophers to augment the kalam cosmological argument. Take note: I'm not arguing for the kalam cosmological argument here; I'm simply showing how science and philosophy are related.

As far as smarts go I think you’ll find the majority of smart people have an “evolved” sense of spirituality. It’s pretty obvious to most anyone with half a brain that we know little to nothing about almost everything. We cannot prove God exists just as we cannot prove their non-existence. With this in mind any rational person must leave God and much of religion as a possibility. Even scientology, while seemingly a crazy cult, cannot be completely disproven.

For a “smart” person the idea that religion is wrong is, at times, just as likely as it being right. Plus the absolutely astoundingly HUGE size of space allows for a near infinite amount of possibilities. Still though an unknown is not proof of something; thus it’s all possible but not certain by any means.

The only people I’ve met who will flat out deny any form of God/Religion/Spirituality are usually pretty limited intellectually. It’s as though they’re still working on a very basic level and haven’t the strength to make the leap to a higher state of thought. Even Richard Dawkins does not deny the possible existence of God and the possible truths of religion. Richard spends all his time trying to prove that much of religion is harmful and in that he may be right; although I’m not sure whether the good outweighs the bad or not.

I couldn't agree more that "we know little to nothing about almost everything," and so a hefty dose of humility is certainly necessary for all parties here. Moreover, I also agree that we cannot, given the current available evidence and means, definitively prove that God does or does not exist from a purely logical standpoint. However, most contemporary creationists are not arguing for the unattainable goal of absolute certainty in their arguments. What we are arguing for is reasonable probability: to show that God's existence is more probable then his non-existence. If it can merely be shown that God's existence is more probable then his non-existence, then the most reasonable course of action would be to accept the existence of God. Nowhere is this more critical and applicable then the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ, given the fact that the Christian worldview ultimately depends on the historicity of that single, paradigm shifting event (see 1 Corinthians 15:17). However, that is an extended debate in-and-of itself, and I'll be starting a new thread at some point on that specific topic (The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus).

TL;DR – God may exist, or may not. Faith is to believe in something without proof. So if you believe that God exists, or does not, you have faith in that belief as you have no facts. To be rational is to weigh the odds and thus if you believe in the existence of God or the non-existence of God to be a truth you are not rational.

I see where you're going with this, given the impossibility of absolute certainty in this regards. However, it appears that your conclusion is false. You concluded that "if you believe in the existence of God or the non-existence of God to be a truth you are not rational." I think everyone would agree (please correct me if I'm wrong) that the case for God's existence is an either-or debate, rather than a both-and one; Either God does exist, or he does not. We may not be able to discern from our current philosophical context which conclusion is the truth with absolute certainty, but we certainly can discern that: 1. Those two are the only feasible options, and; 2. At least one of the conclusions is an absolute truth that can be held with reasonable probability. Therefore, it is entirely rational to espouse a belief in either the existence of God or the non-existence of God as a genuine truth, given that at least one of those options is certainly the truth.

Creationists may be wrong and they may be right too. Calling all creationists crackpots or generally insulting their intelligence only serves to reflect badly on you. Some of them probably are a tad nuts but in the end, a stereotype is a stereotype.

Thank you Lister, this was well said. Moreover, even as a creationist myself, I certainly agree that a few of my kinsmen may be a tad nuts. Yet, given that they're my brothers in Christ, I love them anyway.

Edited by NeuroGuy, 11 March 2013 - 07:40 PM.

[jamesagreen]

In ancient Egypt, God was associated with the mythology of the New Moon, which resembles both a smile and lovely bottom of a tart.
As the moon fills out, by the time we get to the half-light of the full moon in the first quarter, the buns seem to be associated with
the bottom of a canine pet bearing a "Book of God" on his back, with a highlight at one corner of the book marked by the crater "Proclus",
which reminds us of "pro-clues". Perhaps the document on the dog of the new moon (the hound the Baskervilles, perhaps) is the
resume of the new pet of the moon's establishment crew, the instrument by which the dog hitched a ride on the moon in the first place.


By the time we get to the full moon, we have the mythology of Shine Your Heavenly Body on Me, featuring the lovely buns associated
with Bessarion or Bessarian beneath Aristarchus (Air-is-Star-Kiss), seeming to soar over the fall horizon of the moon only to be
shot down by Einstein from the Crater Euler, as shown in Observing the Moon With Binoculars and Small Telescopes by
Cherrington (Dover Press) or at http://www.oarval.org/MoonMapen.htm . Thus the mythology of the full moon seems to be
connected with the myth of Jesus Christ, appearing as a suitor for his lover Bess, only to be shot down by a meanie
to the Frau Mauro level, where he appears to have erupted out of the buns Bessarion to appear as a grinning handmaiden of binding
not far from the crater Tycho, whose rays seem to symbolize his writing. Thus divine signs and wonders on the moon
were interpreted from ancient times as being signs from Above, Signs from God who shows his buns in the New Moon,
but has simmered down to an old man with a grey beard in the center of the moon conversing with a blackbeard in the
Sea of Storms. The old man resembles Santa Claus, Marx, and the book on his back is probably a Mark-Cyst full of his clues.
However, it is Orion in his circle of stars associated with the Winter Crescent who seems to manifest the primary symbolism
of Almighty God on the celestial sphere. See http://greenray4ever.../wintersky.html for a good star chart of the mythology
of God or Allah, which seems to parallel the mythology of Aristarchus (Air-is-Star-Kiss). Orion is heralded by the star kiss
of Perseus-Pleidades-Aries, the smile associated with goddess Andromeda associated with Bessarion on the moon.
She is a herald angel of the King of Angels.
I note that the celestial sphere seems to be slowly rotating with a period of year around the observer in a way that may
suspiciously resemble the story of his life, in which case the observor may conclude that he is God on Earth
and God in Heaven, somehow, seems like. In this sense "I and my Father are One" may seem to come true
for an individual. See Instant Karma. One may seem to view the universe from a coordinate system at rest with
respect to God. For the buns of God, see http://greenray4ever...commoonism.html . The moon's a balloon!
I am also reminded of the mythology of the beardless gods and goddesses struggling with the bearded centaurs
on the Parthanon in Athens, Greece. The gods were fit to be rushed and fitted by the bearded spirits, it seems, according to the centaurs.
The goddesses, of course, were busty girls or busty dame ladies, perhaps the end result of a prolonged stirring up between a god and a
black-bearded centaur like we find in the Sea of Storms on the moon.
Thus God is associated with visionary miracles On High, which turn out to be existential invariants that exist like signals
imbedded in the matrix of things repeatedly seen from afar. Saints and Heroes associated with the gods seem to
appear in the sky on National Holidays or Saint's Day. For example, see St.Patrick's Day at http://greenray4ever...atricksDay.html
and http://greenray4ever...commoonism.html . For more Weather Visions, see
http://greenray4ever...hervisions.html and http://greenray4ever...onarysky75.html . Trinity Divinity mythology is found,
for instance in the Large Magellanic Cloud near the constellation Dorado in Southern Sky far beneath Orion,
and in the Star Queen Nebula of M16 in Sepens Caput.

Edited by jamesagreen, 11 March 2013 - 10:15 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Great!!! This has turned to a rational discussion. Good stuff!

[Lister]

TL;DR – God may exist, or may not. Faith is to believe in something without proof. So if you believe that God exists, or does not, you have faith in that belief as you have no facts. To be rational is to weigh the odds and thus if you believe in the existence of God or the non-existence of God to be a truth you are not rational.

Based on the available evidence I see the existence of gods that meddle with human business extremely unlikely. Therefore it's rational for me to believe they don't exist.

I believe in the existence of a higher intelligence in the universe but I also believe it has little to nothing to do with religion (directly at least). I believe that religion may be the result of our awareness of this higher intelligence or perhaps more likely a result of the sum total of our own consciousness. The sum total argument would explain why church can be such a spiritual place (because there is usually lots of people there hence lots of consciousness). I believe all of this because to me, the idea that our Universe contains only our level intelligence or lower is rather depressingly boring and I like to spice things up.

So really I believe these things because it provides me with a sense of comfort; I feel like I have some sense of certainty over the matter. That being said I don’t hide behind my views and insecurely toss rocks at other people’s views (or I try not to). I stand upon those views and alter them based on feedback from others freely, regardless of who they are. The strength of someone’s idea as compared to my own is the determining factor. This is not always an easy thing to do but I believe it is the best way to find a reliable answer. If you believe strongly in something you should be able to debate it in a rational, reasonable manor. Is that not right?

Sometimes I think that it doesn’t really matter how far away we are from High school it always finds its way back into our lives. Name calling, attacks on your views, and general rude, insulting behaviour is bottom line the problem. How strong you are and how capable of overcoming this hurdle is ultimately how good you’ll be at expanding your knowledge.

You can believe in God or not but arguing from those perspectives is arguing from your own internal absolutes. God could exist and not exist at the same time but obviously it’s reasonable to argue from a position of God existing or not. So long as you’re not saying that it has to be absolutely true because there’s no way to conclusively prove it either way.

Irrational:

“God does exist so we should all go to church on Sundays!”
“God doesn’t exist and there’s no point arguing whether they do or not!”
“Religious people are all crackpots”

Rational:

“The Universe is very large so there’s a good chance of a higher intelligence existing!”
“Humans are delusional at times and thus many religious views may just be fairytales!”
“Humans are imperfect and thus cannot define perfection.”

I believe the line is crossed for creationists when they take one more step. That is they provide evidence for a scientific proof of Gods existence and then conclude they’re right and move on. Their proof is worth further investigation but it’s a long way from proving anything other than our own lack of knowledge. Creationists can clearly prove that God may exist but certainly cannot prove whether they do or not. If you believe that God does exist or not with certainty that’s more or less a personal preference.

Rationally speaking though there is no proof for the existence of God; and now I shall kick myself from the thread for driving it so far off topic

[NeuroGuy]

God could exist and not exist at the same time but obviously it’s reasonable to argue from a position of God existing or not. So long as you’re not saying that it has to be absolutely true because there’s no way to conclusively prove it either way.
---
Irrational:

“God does exist so we should all go to church on Sundays!”
“God doesn’t exist and there’s no point arguing whether they do or not!”
“Religious people are all crackpots”
---
I believe the line is crossed for creationists when they take one more step. That is they provide evidence for a scientific proof of Gods existence and then conclude they’re right and move on.

I don’t hide behind my views and insecurely toss rocks at other people’s views (or I try not to). I stand upon those views and alter them based on feedback from others freely, regardless of who they are

When you get a chance Lister, would you mind responding to some of the specific arguments I made in response to your previous post? A few of your statements were elaborated on and countered there that were simply restated in this post.

Edited by NeuroGuy, 12 March 2013 - 12:21 PM.

[Lister]

When you get a chance Lister, would you mind responding to some of the specific arguments I made in response to your previous post? A few of your statements were elaborated on and countered there that were simply restated in this post.

I was trying to more or less respond to you (though I may have gotten a bit carried away). I didn’t want to derail the discussion too far though I may have ended up doing that anyways. I’ll try again.

However, most contemporary creationists are not arguing for the unattainable goal of absolute certainty in their arguments. What we are arguing for is reasonable probability: to show that God's existence is more probable then his non-existence. If it can merely be shown that God's existence is more probable then his non-existence, then the most reasonable course of action would be to accept the existence of God.

Reasonable probability is very subjective. What’s reasonable to you may not be reasonable to me. We could delve deeply into Relativism if you would like but I don’t think we need to. Essentially society as a whole decides what is reasonably probable. Plus we may say that Gods existence is reasonably probable when having a casual conversation about the wonders of the universe, but then reject that probability when we’re talking about educating our kids. The weight of the decision on the table ultimately determines the weight the proof will carry.

In the case of creationists their proof may weigh enough to guide very important decisions for them but as society goes their proof is not heavy enough to cause social change (on a large scale at least). This is why I think it deserves more research; it doesn’t weigh enough yet.

." I think everyone would agree (please correct me if I'm wrong) that the case for God's existence is an either-or debate, rather than a both-and one; Either God does exist, or he does not. We may not be able to discern from our current philosophical context which conclusion is the truth with absolute certainty, but we certainly can discern that: 1. Those two are the only feasible options, and; 2. At least one of the conclusions is an absolute truth that can be held with reasonable probability. Therefore, it is entirely rational to espouse a belief in either the existence of God or the non-existence of God as a genuine truth, given that at least one of those options is certainly the truth.

Ok I agree that the debate is an either-or. We cannot hold high level important debates on the vague assumption that God is in two states at once regardless of how possible (or impossible) that might be. Pushing beyond the either-or existence of God we are again left with the subjectivity of reasonable probability and the weight of the evidence.

Personally I feel that we need to address the multiple possible states of “God” before we address the matter of whether they exist or not. In other words we need a list showing how God could exist and then sort that out into likely and unlikely before seeking proof. I don’t usually do that here though because this is mostly delving into imagination which is not usually regarded as being very scientific.

Assuming that the proof weighs enough and we conclude that intelligence exists; can we even describe that intelligence? Would we need the bible to move beyond the conclusion that the intelligence exists to find an answer of what it is? I’m not a big fan of using the holy books as proof of something.

[shadowhawk]

When you get a chance Lister, would you mind responding to some of the specific arguments I made in response to your previous post? A few of your statements were elaborated on and countered there that were simply restated in this post.

I was trying to more or less respond to you (though I may have gotten a bit carried away). I didn’t want to derail the discussion too far though I may have ended up doing that anyways. I’ll try again.

However, most contemporary creationists are not arguing for the unattainable goal of absolute certainty in their arguments. What we are arguing for is reasonable probability: to show that God's existence is more probable then his non-existence. If it can merely be shown that God's existence is more probable then his non-existence, then the most reasonable course of action would be to accept the existence of God.

Reasonable probability is very subjective. What’s reasonable to you may not be reasonable to me. We could delve deeply into Relativism if you would like but I don’t think we need to. Essentially society as a whole decides what is reasonably probable. Plus we may say that Gods existence is reasonably probable when having a casual conversation about the wonders of the universe, but then reject that probability when we’re talking about educating our kids. The weight of the decision on the table ultimately determines the weight the proof will carry.

In the case of creationists their proof may weigh enough to guide very important decisions for them but as society goes their proof is not heavy enough to cause social change (on a large scale at least). This is why I think it deserves more research; it doesn’t weigh enough yet.

." I think everyone would agree (please correct me if I'm wrong) that the case for God's existence is an either-or debate, rather than a both-and one; Either God does exist, or he does not. We may not be able to discern from our current philosophical context which conclusion is the truth with absolute certainty, but we certainly can discern that: 1. Those two are the only feasible options, and; 2. At least one of the conclusions is an absolute truth that can be held with reasonable probability. Therefore, it is entirely rational to espouse a belief in either the existence of God or the non-existence of God as a genuine truth, given that at least one of those options is certainly the truth.

Ok I agree that the debate is an either-or. We cannot hold high level important debates on the vague assumption that God is in two states at once regardless of how possible (or impossible) that might be. Pushing beyond the either-or existence of God we are again left with the subjectivity of reasonable probability and the weight of the evidence.

Personally I feel that we need to address the multiple possible states of “God” before we address the matter of whether they exist or not. In other words we need a list showing how God could exist and then sort that out into likely and unlikely before seeking proof. I don’t usually do that here though because this is mostly delving into imagination which is not usually regarded as being very scientific.

Assuming that the proof weighs enough and we conclude that intelligence exists; can we even describe that intelligence? Would we need the bible to move beyond the conclusion that the intelligence exists to find an answer of what it is? I’m not a big fan of using the holy books as proof of something.

Try the debates in England as a starter.

[NeuroGuy]

When you get a chance Lister, would you mind responding to some of the specific arguments I made in response to your previous post? A few of your statements were elaborated on and countered there that were simply restated in this post.

I was trying to more or less respond to you (though I may have gotten a bit carried away). I didn’t want to derail the discussion too far though I may have ended up doing that anyways. I’ll try again.

However, most contemporary creationists are not arguing for the unattainable goal of absolute certainty in their arguments. What we are arguing for is reasonable probability: to show that God's existence is more probable then his non-existence. If it can merely be shown that God's existence is more probable then his non-existence, then the most reasonable course of action would be to accept the existence of God.

Reasonable probability is very subjective. What’s reasonable to you may not be reasonable to me. We could delve deeply into Relativism if you would like but I don’t think we need to. Essentially society as a whole decides what is reasonably probable. Plus we may say that Gods existence is reasonably probable when having a casual conversation about the wonders of the universe, but then reject that probability when we’re talking about educating our kids. The weight of the decision on the table ultimately determines the weight the proof will carry.

In the case of creationists their proof may weigh enough to guide very important decisions for them but as society goes their proof is not heavy enough to cause social change (on a large scale at least). This is why I think it deserves more research; it doesn’t weigh enough yet.

." I think everyone would agree (please correct me if I'm wrong) that the case for God's existence is an either-or debate, rather than a both-and one; Either God does exist, or he does not. We may not be able to discern from our current philosophical context which conclusion is the truth with absolute certainty, but we certainly can discern that: 1. Those two are the only feasible options, and; 2. At least one of the conclusions is an absolute truth that can be held with reasonable probability. Therefore, it is entirely rational to espouse a belief in either the existence of God or the non-existence of God as a genuine truth, given that at least one of those options is certainly the truth.

Ok I agree that the debate is an either-or. We cannot hold high level important debates on the vague assumption that God is in two states at once regardless of how possible (or impossible) that might be. Pushing beyond the either-or existence of God we are again left with the subjectivity of reasonable probability and the weight of the evidence.

Personally I feel that we need to address the multiple possible states of “God” before we address the matter of whether they exist or not. In other words we need a list showing how God could exist and then sort that out into likely and unlikely before seeking proof. I don’t usually do that here though because this is mostly delving into imagination which is not usually regarded as being very scientific.

Assuming that the proof weighs enough and we conclude that intelligence exists; can we even describe that intelligence? Would we need the bible to move beyond the conclusion that the intelligence exists to find an answer of what it is? I’m not a big fan of using the holy books as proof of something.

Just wanted to say that I haven't ignored your post here; you raise some genuine objections that need to be addressed in this topic. I've been super preoccupied lately and haven't had a chance to write a quality response, but I'm hoping to have a reply out soon.

Try the debates in England as a starter.

It turns out that I might actually be going to England to study at Oxford this fall, so hopefully I'll be able to bring some of those debates to the fore here.

Edited by NeuroGuy, 16 March 2013 - 01:52 AM.

[Bron]

The Last Question by Isaac Asimov - a great short story.

Wow, thank you. I've been wondering where that story came from for years. I guess my version is what you get from a 20 year old child's interpretation of a great story.

You had a truly amazing father if he used to read you Isaac Asimov...

[shadowhawk]

NeuroGuy: It turns out that I might actually be going to England to study at Oxford this fall, so hopefully I'll be able to bring some of those debates to the fore here.

Great, I am excited. You will have to contact "BeThinking." http://www.bethinking.org/

Edited by shadowhawk, 18 March 2013 - 10:43 PM.

[Sobriquet]

Connecting the world religions: at the core of each is rising above earthly desires and freedom from the ego
the eternal emptiness of wanting more and more. Buddhism- the middle way, the path to nirvana is avoiding earthly pleasures to escape the cycle of loss
hindu- kharma- living your life well, helping others, being at peace, repecting all life forms and avoiding harm
christianity-compassion, forgiveness, seeking the kingdom of heaven- jesus said “blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven”, ‘poor in spirit’ means no inner baggage, egoless, & the ‘kingdom of heaven’ is enlightenment, all encompassing love and accepetance of your neighbors, brotherly communion. Let’s come together in peace&love!
--
http://sobriquet093....39/transendence