The most logical belief

robindch

> Serious debate please.

Just out of interest, are my posts visible to you?

Valmont

Wicknight wrote:

For me the logic that supports atheism is that we (humans) invented the concept of gods, so how can God exist if he/it was just an invention of our collective culture. The likelyhood, the probability, that something we invented actually existing in the universe, is relatively slim as to be quite improbable.

As Scofflaw and others will probably point out I can't know we invented God for certain, or that even if we invented the concept of a god that doesn't mean that we by pure fluke got it absolutely correct and such an entity does actually exist. But then again I can't technically know anything, from a logic position. The only things that are actually true are logical tautologies, which only exist in theoretical logic class rooms.

So while being agnostic in relation to God is technically the most logical position, that position isn't based on the idea that there is a lot of good reasons to think there might be a God, more on the logical reality that you cannot ever know for certain anything. There are in fact, as far as I'm concerned, no good reasons to think there might actually be a God.

Which is why, out here in the real world away from the logic class rooms, I'm an atheists because I believe, based on my understanding of human history and culture, that we invented the concept of gods and as such they can't exist in the real world, any more than the invisable green unicorn sitting beside me (called Bob).

If something "god-like" does actually exists it is something else, some as yet unknown entity, because the clasification "god" is invalid to begin with.

Yes!!!! I agree with every word. That is what I always thought, I just lacked the eloquence of language to express it, seriously thanks.

Valmont

Wicknight wrote:

Thats kinda of the point, if words can mean anything you like then communication begins to break down.

That right there is why most of the arguments on this forum are inconclusive

Dades

Valmont wrote:

That right there is why most of the arguments on this forum are inconclusive

That's what keeps us in business.
Up to my beard in work - but enjoying keeping an eye on this great thread.

Zombrex

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

As always Richard Dean Anderson does show the way, but the ascended show a better representation than the Goa'uld.

Touche

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Hmm. Same as Wicknight, which means that your third category can't actually exist. Convenient, since they can't then be offended...

I wouldn't use the word "worship"

I think that

- An theist accepts the concept of gods as valid and believes in a particular god or gods exist

- An atheists rejects the concept of gods as valid and as such doesn't believe any god or gods exist

- An agnostic accepts the concept of gods as valid but isn't sure if any actually exist

Its prefectly possible to have an agnostic position, but I don't.

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

While some seem to dislike what has been done here with probability, which is the assignment of initially equal probabilities to two possibilities, none have offered a reason why the probabilities should be unequal if we're assigning them.

Its not that they were initally assigned, you can assign X and Y anything you like, any value is going to be equally meaningless.

It was the fact that once X and Y had been assigned 0.5 and 0.5, conclusions were then being draw from this inital assignment. That is illogical.

If I assign X (God exists) 0 and assign Y (God doesn't exist) 1 as default values can I then conclude that it is impossible for God to exist?

pH

Wicknight wrote:

Its not that they were initally assigned, you can assign X and Y anything you like, any value is going to be equally meaningless.

It was the fact that once X and Y had been assigned 0.5 and 0.5, conclusions were then being draw from this inital assignment. That is illogical.

If I assign X (God exists) 0 and assign Y (God doesn't exist) 1 as default values can I then conclude that it is impossible for God to exist?

QFT

Here's the same discussion making 30 pages.

Also the book
The Probability of God:
A Simple Calculation That Proves The Ultimate Truth by Stephen D. Unwin, PH.D.

He ends up with 67% probability of God, after starting at 50/50.

Because he's going to use Bayesian probability he uses an even more contrived, position stating that:

"In the Bayesian world, this is precisely what a probability represents: a degree of belief or level of confidence that some proposition is true."

So in his view 50/50 represents (in Bayesian terms) a position "of maximum ignorance".

Here's a review

robindch

Unwin, yeah, he was the guy I was trying to remember yesterday who'd expanded this thread out to book-length by including even more logical blunders and winbaggery and god-bothering than we've seen here to date. Even the title's as confused as the contents - "A Simple Calculation That Proves The Ultimate Truth". Well, if it's an ultimate truth, then why should it need to be proved? Shouldn't it be self-evident or at least axiomatic? And if he ends up with a 67% chance, well, didn't he just demonstrate that the balance of proabilities indictes that his Ultimate Truth is more likely to be true than false, rather than "prove" it which needs a 100% proability. And if it was a simple calculation, then why did he have to write a darn book about it? What a waste of paper.

Anyhow, the Ultimate Truth is 42. Everybody knows that.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Its not that they were initally assigned, you can assign X and Y anything you like, any value is going to be equally meaningless.

It was the fact that once X and Y had been assigned 0.5 and 0.5, conclusions were then being draw from this inital assignment. That is illogical.

If I assign X (God exists) 0 and assign Y (God doesn't exist) 1 as default values can I then conclude that it is impossible for God to exist?

Sigh. In case anyone missed my point of several posts back - the conclusions drawn from an assignment of 0.5 probability of existence to God are as meaningful as the original assignment - not one bit. Just to be sure - any such conclusions have no force, validity, or meaning. They do not explain anything at all, nor is it possible for them to lend any element of credibility to any conclusions that may be drawn from them. They are purely a statement of ignorance, and the only thing they allow us to conclude is that we are ignorant, which we knew already.

We can draw some inference from the fact that we cannot assign a realistic, or even meaningful, probability to the existence of God - we can conclude that either the postulate is meaningless, or that the postulate is incapable of resolution. Neither of these are any particular surprise.

So, as you say, it's illogical (captain). Humour often is, and the absurd almost invariably so.

Of course, I can't answer for the OP, but that's my point of view, and my reason for engaging in this pseudo-statistical exercise - sheer absurdity.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Scofflaw wrote:

We can draw some inference from the fact that we cannot assign a realistic, or even meaningful, probability to the existence of God - we can conclude that either the postulate is meaningless, or that the postulate is incapable of resolution. Neither of these are any particular surprise.

Coincidentally a thread on the philosophy board seems to echo this conclusion...
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054863603

At least people got to open up that old favourite unicorns and dragons argument.

Any more thoughts Alex S?

Alex S.

The Atheist wrote:

Coincidentally a thread on the philosophy board seems to echo this conclusion...
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054863603

At least people got to open up that old favourite unicorns and dragons argument.

Any more thoughts Alex S?

Hi,
I put in a lengthly rebuttal of the dragons / unicorn arguement, but it wasn't published. I will now try again and summarize my opinions.

Right, this unicon/s dragons analogy is not valid, here's why.
Unicorns and Dragons belong to mythology, they do not belong to meta physics, they are not the same as the God concept.
Let me be clear, when I say P(God(s)), I am not arguing about the Christian God, in fact I am not arguing any specific God.
I am arguing a very abstract concept, of an intelligent being that has more control over the universe than we do.
That's all. I am not even arguing the cardinality of this God, I am leaving that open, there could be 1, 5 or 78 God(s).

Furthermore, when I say God, I don't mean Aliens, or any lifeform that are just more intelligent than us, who are then only superceded by more aliens light years away etc.
P(god(s)) is the ultimate power w.r.t. the universe. It doesn't even have to be in the universe. I repeat it very abstract concept. It
doesn't have to care about you, maybe he does maybe he doesn't. That's a separate argument.
I argue that
P(God(s)) is 50%, because it is equal probability of existing and not existing. I base this on the reason that there is no strong argument for it, none against it.
The atheist argues P(god(s)) = 0, but has no logical reason.
Or in this thread, several athesists appear to have argued P(god(s)) = unknown, which is actually an agnostic belief an agnostic conclusion.

The agnostic belief is a belief with logically reasoning, in fact it is the only one in my opinion where the conclusion follows logic.
Atheists try to counter argue agnostics by saying we just on the fence, or using dragon analogies. These are just ridiculous arguements. One could sat this has been vindicated by the fact that when they actually reason, as they have in this thread, they themselves end up P(God(s)) = unknown, which by defintion is not consistent with atheism. It is agnostic conclusion, by defintion.

Rev Hellfire

I would say that most agnostics doubt the existence of an all knowing omnipresent being who has taken an interest in us. This it seems to me to be an idea exclusive to both atheists and theists, it provides an easy definition for atheists of a god(s) who can be easily discarded and for the theists it offers an emotional comfort.
Its just lazy thinking.

Scofflaw

Rev Hellfire wrote:

I would say that most agnostics doubt the existence of an all knowing omnipresent being who has taken an interest in us. This it seems to me to be an idea exclusive to both atheists and theists, it provides an easy definition for atheists of a god(s) who can be easily discarded and for the theists it offers an emotional comfort.
Its just lazy thinking.

While the "benevolent omnipotent all knowing omnipresent being who has taken an interest in us" is precisely the god who I don't accept the existence of, I don't see how this is lazy thinking. Such a God is posited primarily because it is clear that one "should" worship such a God.

There may be Gods who are not benevolent, not omniscient, not omnipotent, or not omnipresent (and hence incapable of being omnipotent) - but are they worth worshipping?

I'm an agnostic in the sense that I don't rule out God(s) as simply impossible, but I think I can at the moment rule out the existence of a God who I would worship, which makes me, to all intents and purposes, an atheist.

Categories, of course, are just categories. They exist for convenience, not for accuracy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tar.Aldarion

Scofflaw wrote:

There may be Gods who are not benevolent, not omniscient, not omnipotent, or not omnipresent (and hence incapable of being omnipotent) - but are they worth worshipping?

I'm an agnostic in the sense that I don't rule out God(s) as simply impossible, but I think I can at the moment rule out the existence of a God who I would worship, which makes me, to all intents and purposes, an atheist.

Hold the show, who says anything about worshipping? I don't think there could possibly be something I would worship because it was a god. I rule out a god that I would worship, don't believe that make me anymore of an atheist though.

I often wondered when I was young, did anybody actually worship a god because of thankfulness or just because there was bad consequnces if tehy didn't, example, hell. I concluded that if there was a god, I would no need to worship it, maybe say thanks, treat it to a show and dinner.
I would be much more thankful to my parents for creating me and looking after me.

Scofflaw

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Hold the show, who says anything about worshipping? I don't think there could possibly be something I would worship because it was a god. I rule out a god that I would worship, don't believe that make me anymore of an atheist though.

I often wondered when I was young, did anybody actually worship a god because of thankfulness or just because there was bad consequnces if tehy didn't, example, hell. I concluded that if there was a god, I would no need to worship it, maybe say thanks, treat it to a show and dinner.
I would be much more thankful to my parents for creating me and looking after me.

I define a god by virtue of worship, so an unworshippable god is therefore not a god. If there are no gods I would worship, then I'm an atheist, because by my own definition of gods, there are no gods - I have defined them out of my universe. From what you say, that would apply to you too.

The question is - is that a reasonable definition of gods, or is there a better one?

apparently circularly,
Scofflaw

Dades

And so here we find ourselves again at the crux of the issue - what is god? This is the reason why person A with essentially the same thoughts as person B, can be agnostic, where B is atheist.

Person A defines god to be an entity we don't understand, that may or may not have a hand in our conception, and who who may have nothing to do with us anymore. Person B might define a god in the original sense, in that there must be a direct and continuing relationship between said god and our existance.

Like Scofflaw (and others) a god for me is what a god is for a theist. An entity with characteristics. I am an athiest - that is I reject the notion of the gods of theists. I don't reject the notion that somewhere there could be something else other than us. Whatever else there may be out there in the universe - it is not a god. It does not demand recognition - it does not interfere - it is simply something beyond our comprehension.

Alex S. wrote:

Right, this unicon/s dragons analogy is not valid, here's why.
Unicorns and Dragons belong to mythology, they do not belong to meta physics, they are not the same as the God concept.
Let me be clear, when I say P(God(s)), I am not arguing about the Christian God, in fact I am not arguing any specific God.
I am arguing a very abstract concept, of an intelligent being that has more control over the universe than we do.

The fact that Dragons and Unicorns now belong to mythology is part of the analogy. However any analogy falls down when the "item" you are making a comparision with, goes beyond the realm of definition - such as your definition of god has.

Perhaps the concept of "god", which used to be such a simple one, has now in a form of self-preservation taken on the form of anything bigger than us we don't understand. Ultimately is doesn't matter if we're talking of the God of the new testament or the fluffy psuedo-god that drifts as a cloud on the other side of the 5th dimension - it's all endless conjecture at any rate.

Zombrex

Alex S. wrote:

they are not the same as the God concept.

Actually they are, which is the point.

You have basically invented an imaginary concept, called it God, and then said it is not possible to know it does or does not exist. I can do exactly the same for a dragon or unicorn, or anything for that matter.

What you have done is what humans have been doing since the dawn of time, which is fitting what we know and understand around what we don't or understand. Your concept of "God" is really no different than any western religious except their is a lot more developed.

You are taking the concept of a creator and controller, a very human concept, that we see every day, and applying to to a specific thing, in this case the universe. That is abstracting human behaviour out into an ominpresent being that controls and has power over the universe in the same way a human has control and power over a loaf of bread.

It makes logical sense to you, and to most humans, because that is the way we think, the way we view the world. Concepts like infinate time, singularities, warped universes, infinate probability, multiple dimensioned space etc don't map to our common everyday experience and as such we have a very hard time getting our heads around them. Concepts like gods do map to what we commonly know, and as such we prefer to apply them to questions such as the origin of the universe.

Dragons made logical sense to humans 1000 years ago for exactly the same reason, the application of known to the unknown. The reason you reject a "dragon" is the same reason why atheists reject a "god", they are simply products of attempts to rationalise the unknown.

Alex S. wrote:

they themselves end up P(God(s)) = unknown, which by defintion is not consistent with atheism. It is agnostic conclusion, by defintion.

It is, but then that isn't the reason why a lot of atheists are atheists.

They are atheists because they reject the concept in the first place as being simply an invention of the human imagination, the human need to understand the non-understandable in concepts familar to us. And as such atheists recongise that a concept like a god almost certainly doesn't actually exist, even one as abstract as yours.

Zombrex

The Atheist wrote:

I don't reject the notion that somewhere there could be something else other than us. Whatever else there may be out there in the universe - it is not a god. It does not demand recognition - it does not interfere - it is simply something beyond our comprehension.

Well said.

Simply put, we don't understand what is "out there", so us trying to put definitions and words on what is "out there" is nonsensical, since any of our imaginings are probably going to be way off.

We imagine based on our very limited experience of life on Earth. We assign terms like "creator", "ruler", "lord", "master" etc and then attempt to abstract them out to huge concepts like the origin of universe. We assume that if something is here it must have started and it might have a creator, since if you see a loaf of bread you assume it was made at some point possibily by someone.

But how do you apply the concept of a "creator" to something like time looping back on itself. How do you assign the concept of ruler if all possibilities are possible and happen in some dimension? Are concepts become invalid in the first place when applied to something as huge and unintelligable as the universe. The simply don't fit any more, so arguing over if they are true or not is rather pointless.

We are slowly realising that the universe exists in ways that are so far beyond our understanding and ability to understand, that our notions of how life works don't apply.

To me an atheists does not simply reject god, he rejects this line of thinking and reasoning, the idea that we can apply what we know from human experience to such mind boggling concepts as the origin of the universe.

An atheist such as myself rejects an concepts we come up with to explain things we can't possibly understand such as the origin of the unvierse, and as such any concept we come up with are at most a misguided, most likely incorrect, guesses.

Asiaprod

The Atheist wrote:

Like Scofflaw (and others) a god for me is what a god is for a theist. An entity with characteristics. I am an athiest - that is I reject the notion of the gods of theists. I don't reject the notion that somewhere there could be something else other than us. Whatever else there may be out there in the universe - it is not a god. It does not demand recognition - it does not interfere - it is simply something beyond our comprehension.

Very well explained. I go along with this definition.

Tar.Aldarion

The Atheist wrote:

Whatever else there may be out there in the universe - it is not a god. It does not demand recognition - it does not interfere - it is simply something beyond our comprehension.

You are saying it is not a god because it des not do this?
If it suddenly did demand recognition, it did interfere etc, would you the call it a god?
I don't think it's actions can simply 'change' what it is and give it a different name.

Scofflaw

I hate to interrupt the general chorus of agreement...but you all knew that I would.

First, I have to sustain Tar.Aldarion's objection to The Atheist's summary. If such a vast and incomprehensible being were suddenly to interfere with humanity and/or demand worship, can that somehow change its nature?

Second, and I'm sure, irritatingly for Wicknight, I still cannot quite agree with his position, which to me seems far too prescriptive and "physical". I find the idea emotionally acceptable, and it absolutely represents my "gut feeling" on the matter - that there are no gods, and that the very concept is one dreamed up by adults "afraid to face the Universe with no better backing than their own resources" (to quote James Branch Cabell).

It remains intellectually impossible, however, to dismiss all god(s) out of hand in this way, although it is easy enough to dismiss the Christian God as described, since there are simply too many internal contradictions. Nevertheless, it remains impossible to simply dispose of all possible god(s) in the manner he suggests.

I am willing to entertain the notion that the God of (for example) wolfsbane exists - but I do not consider him worshippable, and therefore do not consider him a God. To wolfsbane, on the other hand, he is a God, and therefore there are such things as Gods, at least metaphysically - a bit like saying that there is a such a thing as Communism, even if there are no Communists. I do not know whether they have any physical existence, or any existence to the unbeliever.

I am sure this will prompt the point about the stapler again, but, if you were genuinely disposed to worship your stapler, it certainly would be a God - the type called a fetish.


cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

You are saying it is not a god because it des not do this?
If it suddenly did demand recognition, it did interfere etc, would you the call it a god?

Firstly I'd probably call it a chancer for looking for demanding recognition for creating the broken world we live in. But sure, I'd have to concur that this would fit my notion of a god. Coincidentally because it has suddenly taken on some of humanities less admirable traits. Pride, ego, wrath. Be it the First Commandment, or demanding virgins be thrown into volcanos.

Scofflaw wrote:

If such a vast and incomprehensible being were suddenly to interfere with humanity and/or demand worship, can that somehow change its nature?

I'm not sure I get the question, but it's nature has changed because it suddenly fits the profile of the human god concept.

Let me put it another way - I don't believe "god" to be a position waiting to be filled. We've had enough gods - lets open our minds to another concept.

Scofflaw

The Atheist wrote:

Firstly I'd probably call it a chancer for looking for demanding recognition for creating the broken world we live in. But sure, I'd have to concur that this would fit my notion of a god. Coincidentally because it has suddenly taken on some of humanities less admirable traits. Pride, ego, wrath. Be it the First Commandment, or demanding virgins be thrown into volcanos.

I'm not sure I get the question, but it's nature has changed because it suddenly fits the profile of the human god concept.

Let me put it another way - I don't believe "god" to be a position waiting to be filled. We've had enough gods - lets open our minds to another concept.

Certainly it fits the profile of the Judeo-Christian God when it demands worship with menaces, but even before that it fitted the profile of a god. The real question, I suppose, is - would you worship it?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Scofflaw wrote:

The real question, I suppose, is - would you worship it?

Then I guess the real answer is no. Quite simply why would you worship anybody/thing? Awe, facination, fear, maybe but surely the notion of worshipping a creator is bourne of a human desire for such adoration projected on an entity that must be above all that?

Scofflaw

The Atheist wrote:

Then I guess the real answer is no. Quite simply why would you worship anybody/thing? Awe, facination, fear, maybe but surely the notion of worshipping a creator is bourne of a human desire for such adoration projected on an entity that must be above all that?

Exactly. The original question (about the entity changing its nature) can be paraphrased as "if the Biblical God of the Christian fundamentalists actually exists, is he to be worshipped?".

For me, the answer is no - and therefore the question of his actual existence seems to me to be superfluous, rather than ridiculous, since whether he exists or not does not affect my atheism. Annoyingly, of course, this puts me in the position that many fundamentalists would ascribe to me - a perverse rebel against God. Given I have the same view of all other gods that I am aware of, I would imagine there will be a bit of a scrimmage before I get tossed into a specific punishing afterlife...

I don't really "get" worship - the enormity of being alive is sufficient to humble me, but I don't see how I would lay that at the feet of some other entity, physical or metaphysical.

cordially,
but damnedly,
Scofflaw

condra

If you're an anteist and you're wrong* then you'll definitely be getting a taste of enternal damnation. Unless there is a God who only repsects the opinions of atheists.

There is. Believe me! Dont ask why, just believe me.

adam_ccfc

I feel that atheism is the most logical belief as there is no reason to believe that "god" does exist.

For example, if I told you out of the blue that I saw an alien spaceship outside my house last night but I couldn't prove it or show you it, then surely it would be logical for you not to believe me.

Scofflaw

adam_ccfc wrote:

I feel that atheism is the most logical belief as there is no reason to believe that "god" does exist.

For example, if I told you out of the blue that I saw an alien spaceship outside my house last night but I couldn't prove it or show you it, then surely it would be logical for you not to believe me.

Alas, this is a fallacy. The Universe exists, and humanity wishes to explain it. Science offers one explanation - the many religions/philosophical systems offer other explanations. Religion may be make-believe, but not without a reason, as your example is.

Science uses particular tools - reason, objectivity, deduction, repeatability - and operates under specific constraints (no supernatural explanations of phenomena - only naturalistic). It is elegant, and tallies well with the evidence it observes. It has brought about an enormous improvement in living standards for most people.

Religion uses other tools - emotion, subjectivity, revelation, uniqueness - and operates under no real constraints. It is appealing, and gives people a sense of belonging and purpose. The larger, more inclusive, religions may have played a part in easing urbanisation.

Most people prefer religious explanations, or at least prefer not to abandon them for the materialistic explanations of science. Athough religion has less and less utility in explaining the phenomena of the natural world, that is not really its prime purpose. Religion is primarily an emotional explanation of the world.

To measure and describe a house, it is better to use science. Saying "you are welcome in this house" is not scientific, but not meaningless either.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Wibbs

Scofflaw wrote:

To measure and describe a house, it is better to use science. Saying "you are welcome in this house" is not scientific, but not meaningless either.

Kudos. Very nice way to put it.
Cordially,
Wibbs





Cordial is a hard one for me at the best of times.:)

Scofflaw

Wibbs wrote:

Cordial is a hard one for me at the best of times.:)

Many are chosen, but few are cordial?

blushing,
Scofflaw