God in the Forest

[stefan]

In which case you are saying that anything we have not yet discovered does not really exist,

if it has no effect on objective reality, then it can only be imagined, assumed, envisioned, contemplated.

and it is only by discovering it / experiencing it that it comes into existence.

oh yes. it only needs one instant of a thing for it to exist.

In which case you are actually saying that we create reality by what we experience

no, we dont create reality, it is.

or reality is a product of our minds and has no inherent existence outside of us.

no, reality is regardless of us.

In which case any god which is a product of mind is equally as real as a tree that is the product of someones mind !

yes that true, if you conjure up a god in your subjective mind, yes it is equal to a tree conjured up in the same way.

There is no difference

as I said in your subjective mind they have the same status.

 

[Raithere]

First of all, ask why you desire proof.
Say that proof were possible. What would you do once you had that proof?

I desire proof (logical or empirical) because it is illogical to believe something without reason. The alternative is to believe everything or nothing.

I suppose what I would do would depend upon the implications of the proof. For instance a proof that implied a Christian God would evoke a different behavior than proof that implied a Hindu God.

Because not all interact with us.

I've had no interaction with anything I can discern as a God.

At least on the grounds that they don't seem to have anything crucial to do with us.
But not only that.

I don't know about you but not having underpants is a problem for me.

One doesn't believe in God because one had proof of God -- whereby one had obtained this proof indepently of oneself. One believes in God because God has incited one to believe in Him.

I would find this very peculiar behavior but if this were true, so what? Why do theists bother talking about him? If you're supposed to know, you'll know and if you don't know you're not supposed to. It is then pointless to discuss the issue and running around proclaiming there is a God is moronic.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

Well I've never heard of underpant gnomes, but if you present the case for their existence I will be happy to consider it.

Whenever your underpants go missing they have been taken by the underpants gnomes. They take them to make a profit. How they make a profit is unknown, this is the mystery of the underpants gnomes. (for more info, watch SouthPark).

If you can show that all peoples across the world through out recorded history have believed in the underpant gnome. If you can show stories of thousands of people through out history who claim experience of the underpant gnome. And if you can show the relevence and importance that the underpant gnome has to the nature of us, life or reality I will consdier it. Cant say I will believe but I will definately consider.

You can't show this for God so why should I have to demonstrate it for underpants gnomes? If you truly believe in the underpants gnomes, or if you seriously contemplate your missing underwear, you will be able to perceive the underpants gnomes.

I think it comes down to a thing called discrimination. Humans are endowed with a mental function called discrimination, which allows choice between one thing and another - the classification between good and bad, right and wrong, truth and false.

People are often wrong. In fact, people are usually wrong. If you don't believe me take a trip to Vegas and go see all the people and the results of the billions upon billions of dollars they have lost because they don't understand statistics.

~Raithere

 

[§outh§tar]

I desire proof (logical or empirical) because it is illogical to believe something without reason.

What would you consider 'proof'?

The alternative is to believe everything or nothing.

False dichotomy.

Theists have their reason for believing in God but disbelieving in leprechauns - ineffable as it may be. To be more specific, I think you need to state clearly that you think the theist's reason is "unreasonable" and explain why. Non circularly, of course. Otherwise it would be unreasonable.

 

[§outh§tar]

We cannot prove a negative, so we must assume it is possible that said thing exists.

We MUST assume it is possible that asdljfoiw33ehlsd exists?

Eh..

To expand on what Raithere was saying.. to hold such a position, you must know something about said entity. To say God exists is to ascribe the natural property of 'existence' to the supernatural. And then we must provide some method of ascertaining existence (and rigorously define 'exist').

God is only anthropomorphized. There is no other available description. Either he is angry, or kind, or wise or .. etc. This tells atheists that God is only available in the human perception - that is, God was conjured in the human perception.

If only theists and atheists would provide their own definitions of 'exist' and justify them logically, we would all be reasonable.

 

[wesmorris]

Philosophy 101 - If a tree falls down in the forest and noone hears it does it still make a noise? etc etc

Yes, but the noise has no meaning.

well the same answer must be applied to;

Not necessarily.

If a tree is in the forest and noone is there to see it or hear it, does it still exist?

Yes, but it's existence it meaningless.

and then the same answer must be applied to;

Not necessarily.

If god is anywhere in existence and is not being currently seen or heard by humans, does it still exist?

That question presumes god exists in the first place. A tree can be verified by later observation, unless of course you reject the observation... then you're lost and have nothing to go on. I accept the tree because it's part of my stimulous. God is an idea. While I will acknowledge the existence of the idea, it's relevance in nature is simply null unless you presume it so.

And the point to this is not to prove god exists or to convince that god exists. It is to show that the concept of God cant be disproved.

The concept of god can neither be proved nor disproved to me. It's an invalid question by its definition. So long as you don't require consistency, one's criteria for proof can sway all over hell and there's nothing ethical anyone external to you can do to stop it.

 

[wesmorris]

Step 1: Collect underpants
Step 2:
Step 3: Profit!

ROFLMAO!

Love it!

I said that to my wife the other day!

 

[Raithere]

What would you consider 'proof'?

It would depend upon the definition of God. The more detailed the definition, the more proof necessary. There are some definitions, such as cosmotheistic, that I can essentially agree with. Tiassa has one I like; God is greater than that which can be imagined, which is kind of hard to disagree with. Of course, I'm not quite convinced that these actually wind up meaning anything.

False dichotomy.

I gave three options but your point is made. I left out subjective bias.

Theists have their reason for believing in God but disbelieving in leprechauns - ineffable as it may be. To be more specific, I think you need to state clearly that you think the theist's reason is "unreasonable" and explain why. Non circularly, of course. Otherwise it would be unreasonable.

Now how can I state clearly what I think about an unstated reason?

What I typically find is that a theist's reason for belief is emotional. That the belief in a God fulfills certain desires and/or needs. The problem with this is that desire does not determine truth. Instead it tends to become a self-reinforcing fantasy that ignores the facts.

For instance: I want to be able to affect the outcome of a situation I cannot control. I believe that rubbing my lucky rabbit's foot will help affect the outcome in my favor. I have a strong emotionally driven motivation to acknowledge the positive outcomes and ignore the negative ones. This reinforces my belief in my luck rabbit's foot, making me feel more secure when faced with worrisome situation. The problem is that proper analysis reveals that my luck rabbit's foot has no effect on the outcome of, for instance, a roulette table. My belief is false. Unfortunately, since I feel more secure when I have no real reason to, I am more likely to bet again at the roulette table and loose more money.

~Raithere

 

[spidergoat]

The title of this thread has a different connotation to me. I thought of those isolated tribes in the jungle that never heard of God, and the ones that died out without a chance to listen to modern missionaries. They had different ideas about religion, they had their own mythology and ways to practice.

If God is everywhere, why would he neglect to tell these people about Him?

 

[water]

(Q),

You claim to know all sorts of things that have no evidence whatsoever. Why start contradicting yourself now?

You are assuming that the only valid kind of evidence is that one which exists independent from observers.
There is no such evidence.

But here, the general problem of evidence enters: ANY evidence can be disputed. There is no clearly preset criteria what constitutes compelling evidence.

Complete and utter nonsense. Please refrain from comment on that which you know nothing about. You, who has yet to form a rational thought, cannot possibly care about what constitutes evidence.

You are fighting a strwaman of your own making.

Yet, YOU are perfectly willing to accept 0% as 100%.

Faith is given by God. Nobody seeks God on his own.
No *person* can provide you proof of God, and this is what I have been telling you all along.

 

[water]

Raithere,

I desire proof (logical or empirical) because it is illogical to believe something without reason. The alternative is to believe everything or nothing.

I suppose what I would do would depend upon the implications of the proof. For instance a proof that implied a Christian God would evoke a different behavior than proof that implied a Hindu God.

I think the problem with proof is that you demand an inter-personal proof that exists independet of observers. There is no such proof.

I've had no interaction with anything I can discern as a God.

Then this is it for you, for now.
But this doesn't mean that other people didn't or don't experience interaction.
The Christian doctrine does teach that it is God who makes the first move:

1 John 4:9-10
This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.
19
We love because he first loved us.

-- and that without that, a person does not seek nor find God:

Rom. 2:10-11 There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.

Rom. 9:16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. .

Looking for a proof of God without God's intervention does not yield positive results.

I don't know about you but not having underpants is a problem for me.

The talk was about underpants GNOMES.

One doesn't believe in God because one had proof of God -- whereby one had obtained this proof indepently of oneself. One believes in God because God has incited one to believe in Him.

I would find this very peculiar behavior but if this were true, so what?

So everything.

But --
1 Corinthians 2:14
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Why do theists bother talking about him? If you're supposed to know, you'll know and if you don't know you're not supposed to.

For one thing, religionists are told to spread the message.
For two, the world is in sin, and even while God incites faith in some people, these people, if surrounded only by spiritually dead people, will not be able to act on this incitement. For this, theists (and also other people, whom God may use for His purposes) are needed to help.

It is then pointless to discuss the issue and running around proclaiming there is a God is moronic.

Those who have ears, will hear. Those who have ears, want to hear.

People are often wrong. In fact, people are usually wrong. If you don't believe me take a trip to Vegas and go see all the people and the results of the billions upon billions of dollars they have lost because they don't understand statistics.

It is not that they wouldn't understand statistics. They do not care about statistics, and they believe in luck.

 

[wesmorris]

Faith is given by God

I have plenty of faith, and I'm an athiest. My faith has little to do with deities. I have faith in people, emotions, stimulous and reason.

Why do I need a deity?

If a deity gave me the power of reason, it would know I cannot accept IT on faith.

Perhaps then, if there were such a deity... its message to me is "you're welcome" and "fahgettaboutit".

Lacking such an ability to reason leaves one in a quandry wherein a deity (fictional or not) is the only way things make sense.

That doesn't mean squat as to anything beyond that specific need.

The talk was about underpants GNOMES.

They are the ones who took his underpants, those bastards.

 

[§outh§tar]

Faith is given by God.

Now that is 100% wrong.

Unless of course, you want to accept the necessary corollary: disbelief is also given by God.

 

[§outh§tar]

It would depend upon the definition of God. The more detailed the definition, the more proof necessary. There are some definitions, such as cosmotheistic, that I can essentially agree with. Tiassa has one I like; God is greater than that which can be imagined, which is kind of hard to disagree with. Of course, I'm not quite convinced that these actually wind up meaning anything.

I was talking to superluminal in another thread about how definitions of God were meaningless since they would always be anthropomorphizations, or at least restricted by human perspective.

Many people operate by describing God based on what He does (or is purported to do), rather than what He is. After all, whether God is made out of cheese or out of salami D) has no sway on whether or not He is perceived as 'benevolent', 'disinterested' etc.

Human beings can hardly define themselves. We can't look into the mirror and point at a specific place and say "here I am!". And neither can we define ourselves in words. It is therefore no surprise that we have (shoddy) anthropomorphizations of God.

I gave three options but your point is made. I left out subjective bias.

Subjective bias is the mode by which all people in society operate. There is not one person who lives exclusively by objective reasoning. Whilst one may percieve oneself to be reasonable, another may see a fool. There are also problems of inconsistency: where we act 'senselessly' (in ways we would not 'normally' behave). This difficulty is experienced by both theists and atheists. Human beings are not meant to be reasoning machines. If we were, we would all be nihilists.

Now how can I state clearly what I think about an unstated reason?

You have opinions on the subject of God (though you don't believe in it or even know what it is), don't you?

What I typically find is that a theist's reason for belief is emotional. That the belief in a God fulfills certain desires and/or needs. The problem with this is that desire does not determine truth. Instead it tends to become a self-reinforcing fantasy that ignores the facts.

For instance: I want to be able to affect the outcome of a situation I cannot control. I believe that rubbing my lucky rabbit's foot will help affect the outcome in my favor. I have a strong emotionally driven motivation to acknowledge the positive outcomes and ignore the negative ones. This reinforces my belief in my luck rabbit's foot, making me feel more secure when faced with worrisome situation. The problem is that proper analysis reveals that my luck rabbit's foot has no effect on the outcome of, for instance, a roulette table. My belief is false. Unfortunately, since I feel more secure when I have no real reason to, I am more likely to bet again at the roulette table and loose more money.

~Raithere

Undoubtedly, there are emotional foundations to theism. But you say emotions don't determine 'truth'. What determines 'truth' then and what does 'truth' mean?

Your example is a little strawmannish since a person who doesn't believe in God can still have a 'lucky rabbit's foot'. Like I said, human beings are not meant to be reasoning machines. By analogy, we can also conclude that going on vacations is irrational since money would be wasted on frivolity when it could be used for college funds, bill paying, and so on.
Just a matter of perspective.

The main thing to ascertain is: Is it better to be a theist or an atheist? There are happy atheists, I'm sure, but there are also happy theists. Members of both groups can be intelligent, belligerent, insightful etc. I have a feeling that theists are not that different from atheists (although you both strive to be).

 

[superluminal]

SouthStar:

The main thing to ascertain is: Is it better to be a theist or an atheist? There are happy atheists, I'm sure, but there are also happy theists. Members of both groups can be intelligent, belligerent, insightful etc. I have a feeling that theists are not that different from atheists (although you both strive to be).

Interesting point. As an atheist, my personal opinion is this.

Personal happiness is where you find it. If belief in god makes you happy, go for it. But you cannot then claim an equal footing for god against the testable realities of life and nature that affect our prosperity and survival.

Take theism and put it in perspective. I could easily make the argument (and I have) that theism, by its predisposition to assert religious "truth" as fact and force others to follow it with no provable foundation, is the root of much avoidable suffering. Thus I argue that it is much better, in the big picture, to be an atheist.

Why, for instance, are there certain foods that I may not eat? And on certain days? And why are there certain sexual preferences that are not allowed? Why must I close up shop on Sunday when I could be making some good profit? Why should stem cell research be forbidden?

You get the idea.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Well then you have to apply the same conclusion to the existence of god. - human observation or lack of it makes no difference whatsoever to the inherent existence of god.

That cannot be done because reality doesn't tell us this is so (as was
previously stated).

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Water,

Crunchy Cat,

No, I cannot convince you otherwise. You are an atheist, and you are bound to see my theistic stance as that of self-defence.
We can't talk meaningfully to eachother, can't you see?
You and I speak different languages.

I am not sure if it's the position that's the issue. I think it may be individual
values. I like truth alot and it is probably my topmost motivator. What about
you?

Straw.

Plus, What is?" is the fundamental question of philosophy, not of science. Science asks "How does this work?"

Science does not make claims about what there is in the world and what is not there. A scientific theory is merely a statistical model. It is meaningless to ask whether this model is adequate to reality or not; we can only ask whether its forecasts are in accordance with observation.

But here the problems of contaminating the sample, the effect of a self-fulfulling prophecy, and the inherent arbitrariness of common sense reasoning ("If it is 98% safe, you can rely on it." or "If the chance to get a tick is less than 1%, you needn't worry and needn't take precautions") -- all these problems come into play once trying to test and apply scientific theories.

Why do people see? So that they wouldn't get lost.

I am not taking a position of science. I am taking a position of aligning how
we think to the way reality works. Here is my simplified model of 'what
is': "The presence of information without interpretation".

I see you putting in alot of locical thought into the scientific process. That
logic that is being wielded is an example of aligning your thoughts to the
way reality works. The exercise of thinking logically and refining thinking
based on supportive / contradictory evidence that reality provides is a great
way to begin resolving those problems you outlined.

The answer provided to the sight question is an answer and probably has a
relvenace and completeness that is less than 1% of what's available. The
other 99%+ is a result of asking reality the right questions. Of course our
current 100% may not be perfectly aligned with truth and it's ok to
have an approximation. Time will get the answer closer and closer to it.

You have let the complacency of the material world make you numb.

Societal domestication and individual behavior result in varying levels of
desensitization. This applies to both of us as we don't live in the wild. It's
also irrelevant.

You look down on this what you call "emotional need".
Your explanation/suspection -- "I do
suspect it is a result of how our behavior evolved due to social pressure" -- is pointless.

You can afford to think the way you think because you have the luxury of not having to find a purpose to your life.

I don't look down on it at all. I have emotional need... humans are just
that way. I simply choose to understand it and try very hard not to let
it misalign my interpretation of reality.

While I don't have to find purpose in my life (which may be a result of
how I am personally wired emotionally), I do have the option to choose
or discard purpose and for all you know I may have done both numerous
times.

You own shit.
Your life can be taken away in a second, and there is nothing you could do.
The concept of ownership is misleading.
The concept of dedication is not.

I own what I choose. If I am dead, then I can't choose so it only applies
to the living. The concept of ownership I am using is admittedly newer and
tends to be more prevalent in various careers involving people relationships.
While it shares similarities to dedication, it is different nonetheless.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Crunchy Cat,

Reality -- and YOU know it, and we don't, right? ...

I don't know. Your mission is to compare two apples. Your choices for
comparison are two apples or an apple and a sea urchin. If you choose
anything but the two apples then you don't know something that I do.

But will you believe them?!
It will be subjective evidence, and thus not reliable! Maybe they have manipulated the tape!

I might, I might not, and anywhere in between. It all depends on how I
choose to manage the risk.

How do you know what reality tells you ...

I am a part of it and thusly I can interact with it. When I do so, it describes,
relates, and stores the information in a structue (the brain) which is made
up of reality.

 

[wesmorris]

I am a part of it and thusly I can interact with it..

This is a statement of faith.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

This is a statement of faith.

How so bud? Faith is an unconditional trust that a fantasy-being is going to
meet an crazy expectation: "Oh I just know santa will bring me that pony for
Christmas", "God will get me through it", etc. Trust is simply not a factor here.

I'll try to paraprase what I was originally trying to communicate. For the sake
of exemplification, lets say string theory is proven true and everything is
made up of open or closed loops of tiny vibrating strings of energy. Every
nanometer of space would be compose of trillions of strings. As I occupy
some segment of space, I would be composed of the same stuff as the rest
of space. I am thus a construct of reality. My segment of strings can
interact with all the other strings.

Let me know if this clarifies or confuses my assertion.