Why we believe in God(s)

[Jan Ardena]

How does the fact that science can't prove that God(s) don't exist invalidate the arguments that Andy Thomson has put forward? If this is the way you want to set up the playing field, then every single one of your arguments are invalid because you can't prove that God does exist.

Is that how you want to play this game?

I'll respond to the rest of your post when you let me know how you want to proceed.

We're not discussing existence, we're discussing the the origin of the basic
definition/concept of God.

You've asked me to argue against the claims of this video, so I suggest you
see where I'm going with this. But it requires you to answer some to tough questions. You're the one making the claim, not me.

As I said in the other thread, existence of God has to be accepted or not accepted. So existence or not, is not the issue.

Please answer the questions I pose, and let me carry out the task you set me.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Rav,

How does the fact that science can't prove that God(s) don't exist invalidate the arguments that Andy Thomson has put forward?

The chaps argument is based on God does not exist.
If God did exist to him, would he be making the same argument?

jan.

 

[Rav]

we're discussing the the origin of the basic definition/concept of God.

If you want to continue on with the discussion you keep referencing in the other thread, then do it there. It's a related topic I agree, but this thread is for discussing the content of the lecture presented.

You've asked me to argue against the claims of this video

Yes. Try doing it then, if you feel so inclined.

Please answer the questions I pose, and let me carry out the task you set me.

To be honest, I am tired of your diversions. I'll be happy to give your arguments some attention as soon as they become something resembling a refutation of what has been presented. If you want to ask questions, ask them about some point Andy has made, or one of the papers he references. In other words, stay on topic.

 

[Rav]

point out who, when, and how the concept of God simultaneosly popped into the mind of every culture since time immemorial.

I'll deal with this one just so you don't get the mistaken impression that I'm avoiding a question that I can't answer, and because it's sort of on topic.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the concept of a single all-powerful creator deity "popped" into the mind of every culture simultaneously. First of all there is polytheism (which you are conveniently ignoring) and secondly recorded history only goes back about 6000 years.

Done.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Rav,

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the concept of a single all-powerful creator deity "popped" into the mind of every culture simultaneously.

1) So what evidence is there?
2) You say this chap is using science. What is it?
3) How does he know that neuroscience is actually capturing the concept
of God, and religious experience in peoples brains?

Do you know of any culture where the notion of God was introduced
at a later stage, from having no previous notion of God?

First of all there is polytheism (which you are conveniently ignoring) and secondly recorded history only goes back about 6000 years.

Done.[/QUOTE]


I'm not ignoring it as we're talking about ''God''.
But as you've brought it up. What of it?

jan.

 

[Rav]

You asked how the concept of God popped into every culture simultaneously, but there is simply no evidence that it did.

And you are still refusing to address any of the core arguments in the lecture. If you don't want to that's fine, I can't force you to. But I don't see much point to your participation in this thread if you're not going to.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You asked how the concept of God popped into every culture simultaneously, but there is simply no evidence that it did.

And you are still refusing to address any of the core arguments in the lecture. If you don't want to that's fine, I can't force you to. But I don't see much point to your participation in this thread if you're not going to.

I've asked some questions which, when answered, will lead to the problems with the core argument.

Can you answer those questions please?

jan.

 

[Rav]

I've asked some questions which, when answered, will lead to the problems with the core argument.

Can you answer those questions please?

I see nothing but further attempts at diversion. If you can refute Andy's arguments, do it. Do it directly. Focus on him. Pretend I'm not here.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I see nothing but further attempts at diversion. If you can refute Andy's arguments, do it. Do it directly. Focus on him. Pretend I'm not here.

Rav, can you explain to me where his argument is scientific?

If there is no science behind his claims, then arguing agaisnt his
and your beliefs are a waste of time.

Please comply if you can.
If you can't, I will understand, as I am asking some very tough questions.

jan.

 

[Rav]

Rav, can you explain to me where his argument is scientific?

If there is no science behind his claims, then arguing agaisnt his
and your beliefs are a waste of time.

He provides references to studies and other material throughout.

 

[Jan Ardena]

He provides references to studies and other material throughout.

This is where we differ.
I don't see any scientific references, only assumptions.

You asked me here to find fault with his ideas, and when I
ask you questions you avoid them.

I think you agree that there is no scientific
basis for his argument.

It's okay, we understand that you have to stay
loyal to your cause.

jan.

 

[Rav]

This is where we differ.
I don't see any scientific references, only assumptions.

They are in there. If you think I'm lying, then report me.

You asked me here to find fault with his ideas, and when I
ask you questions you avoid them.

You haven't tried to refute any of the content of the lecture, and I've made it clear that I am only interested in discussing the content of the lecture, in a thread about the lecture, several times.

I ignore your questions when they are obvious attempts at diversion. If you want to start another thread entitled "Are atheists arguments automatically invalid because they don't believe in God?" then I'll address that preposterous idea there, not here.

You're screwing around Jan, and everyone can see it.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Rav,

They are in there. If you think I'm lying, then report me.

Who to?

I wouldn't call it ''lying''. Defending is more apropriate.

You haven't tried to refute any of the content of the lecture, and I've made it clear that I am only interested in discussing the content of the lecture, in a thread about the lecture, several times.

I have explained to you that to try and refute a belief is a pointless exercise.
Unless I know how the neuroscience actually ties in with God, I can only assume ''God'' is the subject matter due to personal choice, which means his views aren't based in science.

I ignore your questions when they are obvious attempts at diversion.

You can't know that untill you answer them.
Is this the same kind of scientific observation used in your link?

If you want to start another thread entitled "Are atheists arguments automatically invalid because they don't believe in God?" then I'll address that preposterous idea there, not here.

Rav, this deflection is lame.
His arguments are invalid because thus far there is no science to back it up.
You claim it is scientific, but won't reveal how or why.

Here's a question for you. How does he know that the results of neuroscience
actually pertains to ''God'' and ''religious experience'' (whatever that is)?

You're screwing around Jan, and everyone can see it.

Actually Rav, I'm not.
You are.
And I hope other theists who tend to take the back seat in these kinds of discussions, can see that.

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

Mr. Thompson explains that we are getting close to a science of belief, not that one is already established and proven.

 

[Rav]

His arguments are invalid because thus far there is no science to back it up. You claim it is scientific, but won't reveal how or why.

I will say it again. There are numerous references to various studies throughout the lecture.

Here's a question for you. How does he know that the results of neuroscience actually pertains to ''God'' and ''religious experience'' (whatever that is)?

Probably something to do with the fact that Dimitrios Kapogiannis et al put a bunch of religious people into functional MRI machines which, among other things, demonstrated that the components of religious belief use the same neural circuits which mediate normal social cognitive functions. See from 27:35 in the lecture for how this ties in.

 

[sikander]

We beleive in god as we want somebody to be out there that is thinking about us and ready to help us anytime we want .

 

[NMSquirrel]

We beleive in god as we want somebody to be out there that is thinking about us and ready to help us anytime we want .

its the genie part that doesn't agree with me.