God did it! What's the point?

[water]

This is exactly why I'm an atheist, and why it is the diametric opposite of the truth to characterise atheists as lacking in soul or awe or wonderment. It is the fact that something beautiful happened, totally naturally, in the absence of some all-Powerful puppet-master that on occasion fills me with something akin to transcendence. To be so incredibly fortunate to be alive, and experiencing - coupled with the unbelievably small chance of having been born a member of the only known living species in the entire universe capable of appreciating such a thing (to say nothing of understanding it) is a concept the uh, bigness of which is more than I can readily express in words.

Why consider God "some all-Powerful puppet-master"?

 

[Prester John]

Can you say "strawman", 10 times, real fast?

Can you give an example of where goddidit made people think?

and i'm guessing you can't think of any examples of how godidit advanced human knowledge either. Useful stuff religion.

 

[wesmorris]

If you concede that your reasoning ability is fallible, and that there is a lack of information regarding the proof of god's existence, it becomes hard for you to blindly follow dogmatic principles. I think that is good, it shows that you are still thinking. I wasn't being sarcastic.

Okay.

Are you saying that you have found all the answers, and are not confused at all?

My confusion can avoid my attention, so I might say it but I'm never sure how accurate it is.

That doesn't seem to be what your posts have implied throughout this forum.

Well, it could also be that the way we use ideas differs so greatly that we both seem at least a smidge confused to one another.

If there are two possibilities, at least, and you cannot vouch for either definitively wouldn't that equal confusion?

I'd call that particular scenario "ignorance". In the case of god, I'd call it necessary ignorance based on my analysis of the circumstances of being.

What information have you gained? I'm sure there is a ton of information we have both gained using different life ideals.

I'm sure. Regardless, that isn't really relevant. You said you gained information, I wanted to know what it was. The question was intended to gain clarification of what you'd said in the relevant paragraph.

Are you just saying that the concept of God is not useful in figuring out logic problems

?

Yes. Further, I'm saying it's a dead end in reasoning in general. It doesn't offer extension of thought. It's recursive.

Or that having a belief in God keeps one from researching well?

Note the doodad I said about god and your personal context. You can suspend subjective god relevance in order to research whatever and your talent/skill in that area is not necessarily correlated to your suspended belief. The point is only that when you finally get to "god did it", even if you did a whole buttload of great, solid researd on your way there... you hit a dead end, sink hole.. whatever. "god did it" offers no utility in the solution of the problem. It may offer you motivation to pursue whatever, but it doesn't apply to reasoning directly.

Take einstein as an example. He had a belief in an organizing principle of some kind. The force, or whatever.

I pretty much agree with that, but have an idea as to why things are that way. What does that have to do with god?

This may be part of his motivation for figuring out some of the things he did.

That doesn't mean anything in terms of god. If he'd thought "hmmm... must be god", he probably would have stayed in the patent office.

If he hadn't said, "this universe makes complete sense, but we haven't figured out how yet", he may have stayed in the patent office.

I simply don't see that as god-related at all. That the universe can make sense isn't necessarily related at all.

Now, he may not have used his principle of an organized universe, on every little part of every problem, but I think it was an important part of his work.

Okay.

Are you just saying that blindly ignoring everything around you, and ooh-ing and aah-ing at the universe saying "god did it", with no problem solving work solves no problems?

Pretty much yeah. There's a smidge more to it..

Are you saying, "God did it" is not a good "proof" of god's existence?

I wasn't saying that, as it seems obvious... but I've probably said it. There is no proof of god via any sort of repeatable methodology. Well, you know all that shit, you covered it. I'm not sure what you really believe or whatever, but it seems there's not a lot of difference excepting our semantics.

I think that is entirely subjective, and you are right the belief in God can't be forced on anyone.

I'd take it one step further, or to the side... in that the evidence you take for "god" is as you admit, subjective... rendering it useless as evidence for anyone but you. No not certainly useless, but as in "you can't expect anyone else to accept it as evidence". The big difference being that if we were sitting together at a table, I could expect you to believe we were sitting at a table and vice-versa. In fact if you didn't I'd count it as evidence of some sort of disorder on your part (and vice-versa I'd expect).

Nothing is unquestionable.

True enough, but the faithful... if faithful, have only one song to sing. I meant that as in, it's pointless to question it. Sure, I can question your faith all day long but if you're truly faithful, you'll simply repeat yourself. For instance I have faith in reason, that I exist and that this is real. If you were to ask me all day "are you real", I'd say "yeah" over and over and over. To trip me up you'd say "hey did you know you're not real" and I'd be all "nope, I'm real". The minute I say "well, I guess you're right. i'm not really real after all", I'm no longer faithful. This is how I use the word faith. Perhaps we don't use it in the same way... that doesn't mean I don't know anything about it.

If you think the only type of faith is one with no doubts, you are wrong.

If you have doubts, I wouldn't call it faith. It's hope or something else at that point. The faithful cannot doubt or they wouldn't be faithful. Know what I mean?

How could any sane person have faith if that were so?

That's a loaded question. Hehe. Uhm, sanity is a whole big, other topic. People can believe all kinds of crazy shit and still be considered sane.

After I read this, I don't think you are an expert on faith, to be euphemistic about it.

Well I never claimed to be, but I definately have a few ideas about it. The term itself is absolute to me. You believe something or you don't. Could be you're on the fence. I see a scale with faith at one end, skepticism at the other. Real faith is one extreme, complete skepticism the other. Real faith stops examination, complete skepticism sustains it infinitely. Each offers utility. Skepticism leads to knowledge, leading to conclusions. Faith props up those conclusions until questioned again, then skepticism can lead one through the path used to create the faith, then justifying and re-enforcing the faith, or leading to further skepticism based on the new circumstance/stimulous.

It sounds like you only know of one viewpoint on faith.

*shrug* How many do you have?

One which I wholeheartedly reject.

Maybe you should maintain some skepticism of that conviction until you're sure I don't know what I'm talking about... or maybe you've falsely presumed I don't or maybe I really don't.

 

[water]

Can you give an example of where goddidit made people think?

and i'm guessing you can't think of any examples of how godidit advanced human knowledge either. Useful stuff religion.

Alright. Can you say "strawman", real fast, a 100 times?

 

[cole grey]

WES -

re: faith (blind faith vs. strong faith)

Please correct me if I am wrong, but from what I understand you have a wife and child (or children). If you didn't have faith that your wife loved you would you act differently than you act toward her now? You have faith in your love for her (I assume), partly because you have faith in her love for you.
I'm not saying you have reason to doubt that your wife is in love with you, but if you ever doubted would that make you faithless? While you were doubting her love for you, would you act as if she did or did not love you? Your faith in your marriage is partly her choice and partly your choice. It is dependent on belief, but does not have to be entirely free of doubt for you to remain faithful to her.
This is faith. I think you can have strong faith even when in doubt, and if your faith in your marriage is especially strong you will remain faithful even under questionable circumstances. Blind faith is not accessible to everyone, but strong faith is accessible to someone who has doubts.
I will go one step further and say that if you had never had any reason to doubt, whether it was from her behavior or just from seeing that other people on earth are capable of infedelity etc., your faith would be less complete. Complete in the sense of being multidimensional, that is. It would be less strong if it had nothing that could possibly oppose it. It could be more blindly accepted though.
I still wholeheartedly reject your idea that blind faith is the only faith. I have many songs to sing, not "just one".

Re:God did it

You don't have to suspend your belief in an ultimate "why" to try to figure out how things work. Your supposition here is incorrect.

If we get past these two things above, maybe we can approach the use of God for reasoning.

SILAS - Your wonder is valid. Just as valid as mine. You don't attribute the same "why" as I do. So what? Don't get confused into thinking you get to have some wonder at the science of it all, and I don't. I just get to experience both types of wonder. Sometimes I experience your (and my) type of wonder, sometimes I experience the other type which you don't. If the second type is false, you aren't missing anything true, even if you are missing something good. I'm not saying what types you should experience, that is up to you.

 

[wesmorris]

WES -

re: faith (blind faith vs. strong faith)

What I see as your problem is that you're calling mind static. I'll show you what I mean. Maybe we're both doing kind of the opposite of one another.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but from what I understand you have a wife and child (or children).

No correction required. Two kids, 2 and 4, girls, wonderful.

If you didn't have faith that your wife loved you would you act differently than you act toward her now?

Yes, a little at least. I'd probably be bummed out. I'd be nice to her, but I'm nice to people that don't piss me off. When I'm pissed, I'm not as nice... When I get over being pissed, I'm nice again. So some of the time I'm an asshole, but most of the time I'm a pretty nice guy. I'm a jokester. Ha. Ha ha. People get a kick out of me and I them. My point is however, I change. I might have faith now. Maybe not so much later. It depends on my stimulous, context, etc.

You have faith in your love for her (I assume), partly because you have faith in her love for you.

It's mostly because of how she acts towards me, and that we have children. It's one hell of a bond. I saw her give birth to both my children. She's my family. There's no reason to doubt that, as I live it every day. It's sweeter than it is annoying, so I feel pretty lucky.

I'm not saying you have reason to doubt that your wife is in love with you, but if you ever doubted would that make you faithless?

How could it not? If I doubt it, that's a poor excuse for faith. At that time, it would be something other than faith. Maybe it would come back, maybe not.. but if I were to question it, I wouldn't think it faith at all. More like a question.

While you were doubting her love for you, would you act as if she did or did not love you?

It's hard not to love me, you beautiful bastard. LOL. Yeah okay well I'd act differently than I had prior to that yes, as I'd likely be quite disturbed that a I suspected a family member had jumped ship. Again that doesn't mean I'd be intentionally cruel, but I'd certainly be disturbed.

Your faith in your marriage is partly her choice and partly your choice.

I really don't see it as a choice. It just is. We have children. We can't not have had children together, thus we're family. You can't choose your family once they're part of your family. The idea of choice is in this context actually seems pretty ridiculous to me. I can't undo what is done and if I could, I wouldn't. Choice is simply innapplicable.

Sure, people can choose to pretend they didn't accept someone as family, but that would be a lie. It would be inconsistent with what they themselves know to be true. That's where nuerosis and mental jacked-upedness comes from.

It is dependent on belief, but does not have to be entirely free of doubt for you to remain faithful to her.

I disagree. You're lumping it all together and I'm talking about one's state in time. You either have faith now, or you don't.

This is faith.

Our comprehension of it obviously differs. The way I see it, there is only right now. Later will be now too, if it comes.

Blind faith is not accessible to everyone, but strong faith is accessible to someone who has doubts.

I think that's simply incorrect. The momentum of your earlier faith may catch up with you, but while you're doubting it... I don't see how you call that faith.

I will go one step further and say that if you had never had any reason to doubt, whether it was from her behavior or just from seeing that other people on earth are capable of infedelity etc., your faith would be less complete.

That is an odd way to see it to me. I have blind faith that my wife is my family because she is. I don't worry about infedelity because I know her, and I'm just not really a worrier. If she does, I'll deal with it... but until then or some signs I should be suspicious... I'll cut her some slack. For chrissake she needs it, as even sweet precious girls are incredibly trying.

Complete in the sense of being multidimensional, that is.

What the shit is that supposed to mean? What do you know of my dimensions? My relationship to my wife is layered in my history.. layered in my experiences... layered in my concepts, the way I view the world. How can all that not be wrapped up in the way I see my family?

It would be less strong if it had nothing that could possibly oppose it.

That is the most twisted shit I've ever heard. Hehe. Are you serious? Maybe you're trying to use some kind of growth idea? It couldn't be more strong if nothing could oppose it... right? Maybe you just got backwards for a minute.

It could be more blindly accepted though.

It can't be blind to me if I lived it and have access to it in my mind as part of myself. That's the opposite of blind.

I still wholeheartedly reject your idea that blind faith is the only faith.

I never said that. Perhaps you understand what I mean more clearly after this post.

I have many songs to sing, not "just one".

Yes but do you have style or rythm?

Re:God did it

You keep singing that song though.. don't you? I suppose it is part of your you.. however imaginary a part it is.

You don't have to suspend your belief in an ultimate "why" to try to figure out how things work.

Well then you wouldn't really be honest in your endeavor. You'd be looking to back up your premise. You know, like theists must necessarily do?

Your supposition here is incorrect.

Obviously, we disagree. You cannot have faith in god and question it if you're truly prepared to accept the answer "I don't know" or "no". If you think you can, you're simply a lying to you. I think I owe me more than that.

If we get past these two things above, maybe we can approach the use of God for reasoning.

We cannot get past it as long as you can't accept the possibility that god doesn't exist, or that you can't know that god exists. If you accept it those things however, you've taken my position and your faith would have to be put somewhere else... like for instance, in reason. I don't really think our dispute is really about a lack of faith... it's about where you put it.

You've chosen to put yours in a circle in your mind.

You claim to know the omnipotent. I think it's about your ego. I think you need something like the idea of god to prop yourself upon, in order than you not feel small... in order that your ego not sink to despair. The question that brings to mind is the most important question I can think of...

Why aren't you enough for you?

Perhaps I'm being far to presumptuous. I really don't know you at all... but that's the line of reasoning that came to mind. I'm sure you'll straighten me out where I've errored.

I truly feel lucky to be alive and me. I guess I'd have never missed it had I not existed, but I do... so I might as well enjoy the ride. I hope you enjoy yours too.. even if jesus is your co-pilot.

 

[Godless]

You don't know who I am or what I believe. You never bothered to investigate. And yet you accuse me of things!

Pick on my mentor and get your ass kicked allover these here boards!.


Or haven't you looked under my name?.

Godless.

 

[wesmorris]

So that's it?

 

[cole grey]

wes,

sorry, but I got slammed with a work project. Hopefully soon I can return.

 

[Prester John]

Water, Now Now, i Said:

Well it removes the requirement to think about a subject.

and your comment was:

... and that condension is so general that it is useless.

So all i'm doing is asking you to support your "rebuttal" with information that shows that goddidit does make people think.

I'd assume by your avoidance of the question you can't.

 

[wesmorris]

wes,

sorry, but I got slammed with a work project. Hopefully soon I can return.

Not a problem, I appreciate the response.

 

[water]

Pick on my mentor and get your ass kicked allover these here boards!.

So you worship idols?


* * *

“ Well it removes the requirement to think about a subject. ”

and your comment was:

“ ... and that condension is so general that it is useless. ”

So all i'm doing is asking you to support your "rebuttal" with information that shows that goddidit does make people think.

"Goddidit" is a strawman that you use against believers, implying that they don't think.

As I have said in my reply to Wes, it all depends on what we understand by "God" and "God did it".

If God is of no relevance to you, if by "God" you think of some old man with a beard, then saying "goddidit" indeed shows you do not think about a subject.

On the other hand, if God is of relevance to you, and is important to you, then you are not taking God for granted, and make your best effort to not take anything for granted -- you think about subjects.

I'd assume by your avoidance of the question you can't.

Presumptuous you are.

 

[okinrus]

wesmorris, without the assumption of order, the scientific progress we've made would not be possible. Why look for a solution if your philosophy tells you otherwise? Atheists, of course, can believe in this order, too. But they cannot tell us why it exists. We can point to God. We can say he created this order, and then, assuming that order exists, attempt to find laws. Atheists tell us otherwise. They tell us that order comes out of chaos or that order has always existed. But, to me, these stances seem oblivious to our reality. We know that a clock was made by a man--not because of its complexity but because of its order.

 

[Godless]

So you worship idols?

LOL,LOL,LOL!!! LOL,LOL!!

Thanks for making an ass of yourself!!.

A mentor is not an idol, it's someone whom you admire for their philosophy, kindness, or basically parental attitude towards someone younger. She's my mentor because I admire her writing, and her achievements while she lived.

"Goddidit" is a strawman that you use against believers, implying that they don't think.

Well the "goddidit" is not a strawman; it's a good example of "GIVING UP", and plainly just claiming since theists don't understand, or can't comprehend, or can't figure it out, the only logical answer for these individuals is "goddidit". Totally stagnating the research needed to Understand, to Comprehend and to Figure it out.

Godless.

 

[wesmorris]

wesmorris, without the assumption of order, the scientific progress we've made would not be possible.

It does not need to be assumed. There is plenty of evidence to support it.

Why look for a solution if your philosophy tells you otherwise?

Why do you think my philosophy dissallows order?

Atheists, of course, can believe in this order, too.

Kind of you to allow it?

But they cannot tell us why it exists.

Oh? How do you know?

We can point to God.

That one is free to explain anything in whatever manner they choose does necessarily not lend relevance to their explanation to anyone but them.

We can say he created this order, and then, assuming that order exists, attempt to find laws.

You don't have to assume order to look for it. Actually if you do, you've screwed up your investigation.

Atheists tell us otherwise.

I think you have a lot to learn.

They tell us that order comes out of chaos or that order has always existed.

First, "atheists" don't tell you that. People may. Some of those people may be athiests. Regardless, how do you know it doesn't? You've already made up your mind about things that you don't know anything about. If you maintain your presumption, you can have no capacity to investigate the relevance of your claims to the contrary.

But, to me, these stances seem oblivious to our reality.

So what? It may seem that way. Is it? You don't know, but presume you do. Your ego requires it of you else you feel small. This is the opportunity cost of religion. Integration of religious presumption into the ego causes dependence upon it. As with anything, there are related strengths and weaknesses. One of the strengths offered by religion is conviction and belonging - very useful for tribal socialization.

We know that a clock was made by a man--not because of its complexity but because of its order.

LOL. Ah, the blind clock maker eh? Can you say anthropomorphization?

 

[okinrus]

It does not need to be assumed. There is plenty of evidence to support it.

No, there is not. For instance, we could be attempting to bring our enivoronment, which is unordered, to the order of our minds.

Why do you think my philosophy dissallows order?

The question was not meant in reference to you, but to those who did have a philosophy where the world was unordered.

Oh? How do you know?

Well, I know because the only way out of this dilemna is to assume at one time order did not exist, and then came to being from unorder, or to assume order has always existed. For the first point, if order did not exist and then gave rise to order, by the assumption of no order before order, an "orderly" explanation cannot be given.
For the second point, they have similar problems. They will not be able to give an explanation, to do so would mean some unordered object caused order. That is not to say there're wrong. There might not be an explanation. But certaintly this view puts them in the category of "God-did-it."

First, "atheists" don't tell you that. People may.

I used the term atheists not to generalize but to mean atheists; that is, people belonging to the atheistic religion/ideology.

Some of those people may be athiests. Regardless, how do you know it doesn't? You've already made up your mind about things that you don't know anything about. If you maintain your presumption, you can have no capacity to investigate the relevance of your claims to the contrary.

For anything that exists, it either existed forever or it didn't. In the case an object didn't exist but now exists, it must have been brought into being. Most things that are brought into being have a cause, some force that brought them into being. But to assume so is an assumption, I think.

So what? It may seem that way. Is it? You don't know, but presume you do. Your ego requires it of you else you feel small. This is the opportunity cost of religion. Integration of religious presumption into the ego causes dependence upon it. As with anything, there are related strengths and weaknesses. One of the strengths offered by religion is conviction and belonging - very useful for tribal socialization.

The strength of a religion is brought by the force of truth, within it's claims, I mean. Both ego and socialization are not viable reasons for the truth, though they are viable reasons for <em>searching</em> for the truth, the truth of course being ordered.