If you were to debate in favour of a God?

daveyjoe

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Maybe there is no succinct answer as to why God exists and Gary the Magical Fairy doesn’t. Historical evidence in the form of the Bible and secondary sources along with the testimony born out the personal experiences of countless numbers of people would suggest that maybe there is something to this God thing after all.

I don't really want to bring this thread off topic by talking about a specific god, but I'll offer a few points nonetheless. I'm presuming your talking about an Abrahamic god, must likely christianity.

Where is the historical evidence? We're in a situation now where the majority of christians take the book as a metaphor and cherry pick the nice parts of the bible. I'm going to assume that you're one of them (If I'm wrong and you believe that the earth is 6,000 years old then let me know). So, if it's all just a metaphor then what's the point?

Even the evidence for Jesus is questionable, his story seems to be remarkably similar to hundreds (I'm not exaggerating) of other mythical heros that have existed in many different cultures, apparently virgin births are quite popular in myths.

It's difficult to argue against personal experiences. People have had "personal experiences" of UFO's, big foot, even the lock ness monster. Hallucination? Inimical intent? Joke? Wishful thinking? Who am I to say?

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

However, I suspect that you don't feel the need to dispense this advice to anybody who holds the same opinion as yourself.

I certainly would. I demand it from everyone, including myself.

The first question I ask myself is "Why do I believe that"

One has to ask oneself what does one get from a belief. And if this benefit clouds ones judgment as to whether or not the belief is solid.

For example, do I believe I'm going to win the Lotto this week because I actually am going to win, or because I'm pissed off at my credit card bill and my rent.

Do I believe that girl was being nice to be because she fancied me or because I fancied her?

Etc ...

With relation to you you need to ask yourself do you believe God is real because it is a rational judgment, or is your belief clouded by the fact that you want it to be true because of the benefits that it would bring if it was true.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It is the manner and force in which those opposing views are delivered that is cause of my grievance.

Rabid atheists holding you down and reading "The God Delusion" to you

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote: »

Fanny Cradock wrote:

However, I suspect that you don't feel the need to dispense this advice to anybody who holds the same opinion as yourself.

I certainly would. I demand it from everyone, including myself.

I think we have quite sufficient evidence on these boards alone that this is true.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Scofflaw wrote: »

Determined mathematically by?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Big sums?

seamus

Scofflaw wrote: »

Determined mathematically by?

I think he means mathematically determinable. That is, given a set of inputs to a function, you will always arrive at the same value. This is a key characteristic of our universe - as far as we know, nothing is completely random and unpredictable. It's making those predications or measuring the values that eludes us.

Son Goku

I think he means mathematically determinable. That is, given a set of inputs to a function,

Funnily enough, they can be determined without any inputs.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Determined mathematically by?

cordially,
Scofflaw

It's difficult to explain in most cases, as it is fundamentally tied to an area of mathematics called group theory. In fact this is probably the thing I find most difficult to explain, so forgive me if I mess it up.

However the simplest example is the Strong Nuclear force. There are twenty-four fundamental constants which determine how strong the Strong Nuclear force is. The Strong Nuclear force acts on quark color (color is the correct spelling), like how electromagnetism acts on electric charge.

There are three quark colors: red, green and blue

Here comes the bit I'll mess up on:
The definition of the Strong Force is the force that acts on color and there are three colors. According to Quantum Field Theory there exists only one theoretically conceivable force which obeys the dictates of special relativity and quantum mechanics and acts on three quantities like color and that Force is the Strong Nuclear force with those specific values for the twenty-four fundamental constants.

Basically:

Premises:
1. Universe is quantum mechanical
2. Universe is relativistic
3. There are three colors

Conclusion:
Exact set of values for twenty-four fundamental constants.

It could be no other way. Unless one of the premises fails to be true.

Let me know if that answered your question.

Zombrex

Is it kinda like saying that the ratio between a circle and its diameter is always Pi?

Son Goku

Wicknight wrote: »

Is it kinda like saying that the ratio between a circle and its diameter is always Pi?

Yes. That's probably a better way of putting it. It's part of what being a circle entails, same for the strong force and those constants.

Scofflaw

Son Goku wrote: »

Funnily enough, they can be determined without any inputs.


It's difficult to explain in most cases, as it is fundamentally tied to an area of mathematics called group theory. In fact this is probably the thing I find most difficult to explain, so forgive me if I mess it up.

However the simplest example is the Strong Nuclear force. There are twenty-four fundamental constants which determine how strong the Strong Nuclear force is. The Strong Nuclear force acts on quark color (color is the correct spelling), like how electromagnetism acts on electric charge.

There are three quark colors: red, green and blue

Here comes the bit I'll mess up on:
The definition of the Strong Force is the force that acts on color and there are three colors. According to Quantum Field Theory there exists only one theoretically conceivable force which obeys the dictates of special relativity and quantum mechanics and acts on three quantities like color and that Force is the Strong Nuclear force with those specific values for the twenty-four fundamental constants.

Basically:

Premises:
1. Universe is quantum mechanical
2. Universe is relativistic
3. There are three colors

Conclusion:
Exact set of values for twenty-four fundamental constants.

It could be no other way. Unless one of the premises fails to be true.

Let me know if that answered your question.

Yes, thanks - it's the kind of explanation I expected to be behind an expression like "determined mathematically". In other words, their values are determined mathematically from theoretical constraints. Unless those theoretical constraints are incorrect, those values can only be what they are.

cordially,
Scofflaw

10romans

'The realisation that the universe doesn't exist for us, that we are simply an interesting consequence of the universe, I think is the first step someone takes to becoming an atheist.

And I think until a theist beings to think like this it is very difficult to contemplate atheism, because the idea that we are the purpose of the universe is always in the back of the persons head.'[/QUOTE]

I am new to boards and thisdiscussion and genuinely starting from a baby understanding! . . . does the inclination to goodness that almost everyone has come from our physical evolutionary journey or does it come from something to do with a thing that from tradition and history we call god . . . a spiritual energy thing helps give us meaning to our lives . . . we are trying to live loving lives . . . or is this just cheesy wishful thinking to comfort us?

Scofflaw

10romans wrote: »

I am new to boards and thisdiscussion and genuinely starting from a baby understanding! . . . does the inclination to goodness that almost everyone has come from our physical evolutionary journey or does it come from something to do with a thing that from tradition and history we call god . . . a spiritual energy thing helps give us meaning to our lives . . . we are trying to live loving lives . . . or is this just cheesy wishful thinking to comfort us?

I'm afraid a lot of it has been found to be evolutionary. Either that, or God tried morality out on monkeys before giving it to Adam. There's very much to be said for trying to live a loving, or proper, life, but the idea that the impulse derives from God or a spiritual energy is probably prime Roquefort.

cordially,
Scofflaw

daveyjoe

I've just finished watching a debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza. Finally, we had an evenly matched couple of debaters! I don't agree with a lot of Dinesh's viewpoints but he is a formidable debater and very quick witted. Hitchens didn't seem to be on top form and I would struggle to declare anybody but Dinesh as the winner of the debate (as much as it pains me to say that).

The question of a finely tuned universe was raised by Dinesh and Hitchens mentioned that Richard Dawkins once told him that it was the most interesting argument that he had so far heard or encountered in all his debates with the faithful. He then goes on to make a stab at answering the question (unsatisfactorily in my opinion).

Hitchens begins talking about the finely tuned universe at the four minutes mark in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeXrFHupaiw

John Wine

Son Goku wrote: »

I should probably mention that most of the fundamental constants aren't arbitrary but are determined mathematically. So they can't be adjusted. Of those that can be adjusted, most are irrelevant for life. Finally they aren't constants, in the true sense of the word, as they have different values at different distances.

Are you talking about?
1. nu (a ratio of the strength of electrical forces that hold atoms together compared to the force of gravity which is 10 to the 37th power)

2. epsilon (how firmly the atomic nuclei bind together which is 0.004)

3. omega (amount of material in the universe)

4. lambda (force of cosmic "antigravity" discovered in 1998, which is a very small number)

5. Q (ratio of two fundamental energies, which is 1/100,000)

6. delta (number of spatial dimensions in our universe)

Zillah

10romans wrote: »

does the inclination to goodness that almost everyone has come from our physical evolutionary journey

The morality of any given person is a combination of genetic predisposition and cultural filtering. Genetically it would appear that human beings are born with an innate ability for moral thinking, the emotion of empathy being the primary drive behind it. Its a very powerful tool for creating a successful society. However, as we see, people can very easily ignore such drives if their life circumstances become bad enough or should their social conditioning twist them in strange ways.

We also have a disquieting ability to rationalise incredibly evil acts with the rest of our morality should the situation require it.

Fanny Cradock

daveyjoe wrote: »

I don't really want to bring this thread off topic by talking about a specific god, but I'll offer a few points nonetheless.

Fair enough. I'll keep my reply short then.

::Edit::

Wow, it's not a short post at all

daveyjoe wrote: »

Where is the historical evidence? We're in a situation now where the majority of christians take the book as a metaphor and cherry pick the nice parts of the bible. I'm going to assume that you're one of them (If I'm wrong and you believe that the earth is 6,000 years old then let me know). So, if it's all just a metaphor then what's the point?

Firstly, I don't think my interpretation on Genesis is of any great importance to this debate. It would seem no matter what side a Christian chooses - literal truth or metaphor - we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. However, if you must know, I would subscribe to the theory of theistic evolution. My personal views aside, I really don't see how you can claim that 'it's all just a metaphor'. Even the staunchest of atheists I've encountered haven't claimed that all of the Bible is metaphorical.

daveyjoe wrote: »

Even the evidence for Jesus is questionable, his story seems to be remarkably similar to hundreds (I'm not exaggerating) of other mythical heros that have existed in many different cultures, apparently virgin births are quite popular in myths.

Even if you disregard the theological scholars view on the existence of Jesus, I would think it difficult to ignore the body secular historians (which I believe to be in the majority) that have reached the same conclusion as their theistic collogues: there was a Jesus, albeit they think him merely a man. You might find some interesting reading here (yes, I know it's from Wiki): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

You say there are 100's of similar myths. I would welcome a discussion on any any of these. In the mean time, I would point you to the Christianity forum where some of the myths that Jesus was apparently based upon have been discussed at in some length - including the poster boy of the Jesus-mythers, Horus. I can't think of the thread title that discussed Horus, but if you wish I can post a link later. What I believe is if you look a little closer at the claims they appear wholly false or they can be dismissed outright because of their tenuous links (remembering that insubstantial similarity isn't damning) or they actually arose after Jesus.

10romans wrote: »

I am new to boards and thisdiscussion and genuinely starting from a baby understanding! . . . does the inclination to goodness that almost everyone has come from our physical evolutionary journey or does it come from something to do with a thing that from tradition and history we call god . . . a spiritual energy thing helps give us meaning to our lives . . . we are trying to live loving lives . . . or is this just cheesy wishful thinking to comfort us?

If you are asking atheists if this comes from God then you are only going to get one answer: No.

C.S. Lewis had something to say on the matter (I hear the collective gowns). He proposed the existence a universal 'Moral law' in his book Mere Christianity. This law is something that is fundamentally held by all, and it is what separates difference of opinion from something more profound. You might find this link explains it considerably better: http://apologetics.johndepoe.com/morality.html

Wicknight wrote: »

One has to ask oneself what does one get from a belief. And if this benefit clouds ones judgment as to whether or not the belief is solid.

Reading between the lines: you are delusional. Would you take my word on it that I am not

Wicknight wrote: »

Rabid atheists holding you down and reading "The God Delusion" to you

Yeah, you're always up to that. But it's not half as bad as those guys - I'm guessing Tim is one of them - standing at the top of Grafton Street singing atheist songs.

daveyjoe

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Stuff

I want to keep this thread on topic (and my biblical knowledge is lacking), so I'm going to be terse and offer up only bullet points (seriously!).

• You're interpretation of genesis does matter. It helps to know what you're arguing against. If someone tells me that they are a christian then it really doesn't tell me a whole lot about their beliefs. To put it politely, Ye are a diverse bunch.
• Jesus the person probably did exist. Evidence for miracles, virgin births etc.. is unconvincing.
• I think Zillah covers the morality point. I take a rather lonely viewpoint among atheists on this topic though... My thoughts are that a belief in god can cause some (I emphasise some) people to act morally where they wouldn't otherwise, this is because of the old "Be good, he's watching you" mentality.
• "standing at the top of Grafton Street singing atheist songs."

PDN

John Wine wrote: »

Are you talking about?
1. nu (a ratio of the strength of electrical forces that hold atoms together compared to the force of gravity which is 10 to the 37th power)

2. epsilon (how firmly the atomic nuclei bind together which is 0.004)

3. omega (amount of material in the universe)

4. lambda (force of cosmic "antigravity" discovered in 1998, which is a very small number)

5. Q (ratio of two fundamental energies, which is 1/100,000)

6. delta (number of spatial dimensions in our universe)

Do any of these amount to 42 and thus explain the meaning of life?

Son Goku

John Wine wrote: »

Are you talking about?
1. nu (a ratio of the strength of electrical forces that hold atoms together compared to the force of gravity which is 10 to the 37th power)

2. epsilon (how firmly the atomic nuclei bind together which is 0.004)

3. omega (amount of material in the universe)

4. lambda (force of cosmic "antigravity" discovered in 1998, which is a very small number)

5. Q (ratio of two fundamental energies, which is 1/100,000)

6. delta (number of spatial dimensions in our universe)

Quite a few of those aren't fundmental. For example epsilon ultimately comes from the Strong Force constants I gave above. Delta isn't "tunable", as it is not a continuous parameter. Nu definitely isn't fundamental as it is composed of two other constants. Where is that list from?

The "real" fundamental coupling contants are usually more abstract things like the cabibbo angle, which have an effect over a vast range of phenomena.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Reading between the lines: you are delusional. Would you take my word on it that I am not

I might if you had a good argument.

I might not publicly admit to it, but I would certainly consider it. I consider the concept that God may exist all the time. But I also consider why I would want that to be true.

This goes back to the post I made on Sleepy's thread about do theists understand why atheists think their beliefs are silly.

A lot of the times I find it very hard to understand how theists can look at an argument and go "wow, that makes a lot of sense." I can understand why they would believe it, or why they would want it to be true, but I can't understand how they think it makes sense, internally. Maybe you don't and you just aren't saying, I don't know.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

I might not publicly admit to it, but I would certainly consider it. I consider the concept that God may exist all the time. But I also consider why I would want that to be true.

Why I believe you just did.

You rather arrogantly assume that theists haven't put as much (or a great deal more) 'objective' thought into the matter and decided that there is a God.

Wicknight wrote: »

This goes back to the post I made on Sleepy's thread about do theists understand why atheists think their beliefs are silly.

I wonder have you taken a psychology course recently? Your last few post seem to be mainly concerned with the deconstruction of the theists, as you see it, flawed reasoning for their belief in God. Well, more so than usual.

Wicknight wrote: »

I can't understand how they think it makes sense, internally.

Probably because you are as biased as those deluded fools on the other side of the debate.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You rather arrogantly assume that theists haven't put as much (or a great deal more) 'objective' thought into the matter and decided that there is a God.

No I arrogantly assume that theists compartmentalize arguments so they don't conflict with each other and lower their standards of rationality inquiry to arrive at answers that they desire to be true for the purpose of arriving at comforting answers.

Has it never struck you a bit funny that the god you believe in just happens to provide you with a heck of a lot of things that you desire, including the promise of eternal life?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Your last few post seem to be mainly concerned with the deconstruction of the theists, as you see it, flawed reasoning for their belief in God. Well, more so than usual.

Well its been a slow weekend ...

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Probably because you are as biased as those deluded fools on the other side of the debate.

Well that doesn't make much sense because if it was true then I would know what it feels like

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

No I arrogantly assume that theists compartmentalize arguments so they don't conflict with each other and lower their standards of rationality inquiry to arrive at answers that they desire to be true for the purpose of arriving at comforting answers.

Has it never struck you a bit funny that the god you believe in just happens to provide you with a heck of a lot of things that you desire, including the promise of eternal life?

There are some areas of faith and science were *shockingly* I would agree with you about this rational inquiry gripe you have - specifically with regards to 'creationism' in the young earth sense.

This arises, I believe, due to the fostering of a particular compartmentalised mindset (found on both sides) - a setting out of stalls, so to speak. 'We accept God and reject science' or vice versa. I would say that 'Belief in God is at odds with rational thought' falls firmly into that mindset. I'm under no illusions that Dawkins and his believers (:D) would have something to say about that, but I'm unmoved.

I've yet to find any compelling evidence regarding the non-existence of God. Therefore, given my compelling personal experiences (which of course must be delusional episodes), I choose to believe in Him. So much for nails in the coffin!

You say that I choose to believe (however sub-concious that choice is) because I'm promised something wonderful by a fictions deity. Yet this completely ignores the challenging aspects of Christianity (indeed a fundamental aspect) whereby you turn your life over to God at the expense of your own desires. It's hardly all sunshine and lollipops; Christians don't have it all their own way.

Ultimately, the monochromatic picture of faith that you paint - it's simply there to ease us irrational folks into the grave - is just a matter of personal opinion, not fact.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well that doesn't make much sense because if it was true then I would know what it feels like

Sorry, I don't follow your train of thought here.

karen3212

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yet this completely ignores the challenging aspects of Christianity (indeed a fundamental aspect) whereby you turn your life over to God at the expense of your own desires. It's hardly all sunshine and lollipops; Christians don't have it all their own way.

.

The thing is though, I would have thought that is a benefit for many people. Putting your life in someone else's hands, accepting fate. Surely that's a benefit of belief?

karen3212

karen3212 wrote: »

The thing is though, I would have thought that is a benefit for many people. Putting your life in someone else's hands, accepting fate. Surely that's a benefit of belief?

Indeed - letting someone else make all your decisions for you, someone else who is allegedly infinitely loving and can't makethe wrong decisions - well, that's easy enough. All you gotta do is sit back and not think about it.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I would say that 'Belief in God is at odds with rational thought' falls firmly into that mindset. I'm under no illusions that Dawkins and his believers (:D) would have something to say about that, but I'm unmoved.

Yes but the question is why are you unmoved? The argument that something fantastical and supernatural most likely doesn't exist is a sound one, even if it does turn out to be incorrect.

You are unmoved by it because you really really really want there to be a God, because if there is then your life (as you see it) vastly improves. This is the reason all religious people subscribe to a religion. There are very few religions where believing in the doctrine of the religion makes a person much worse off.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I've yet to find any compelling evidence regarding the non-existence of God.

Yes but I would imagine that to you there is no such thing as "compelling" evidence to the non-existence of God, which leaves you free to continue to believe what you want to believe. Its the chicken and the egg. You will never find compelling evidence to the non-existence of God if you aren't prepared, because of your religious beliefs, to view any evidence as compelling.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Therefore, given my compelling personal experiences (which of course must be delusional episodes)

They don't have to be delusional episodes, but they most likely are tricks of the mind. But then the option that they are tricks of the mind isn't very nice, is it? We would all much rather believe that these tricks of the mind are actually real things (real being what we want them to be), be it someone in a major religion or just someone who thinks their grandmother is an "angel" living on their shoulder.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yet this completely ignores the challenging aspects of Christianity (indeed a fundamental aspect) whereby you turn your life over to God at the expense of your own desires. It's hardly all sunshine and lollipops; Christians don't have it all their own way.

Yes and what do you get out of that?

Eternal life of blissful happiness and a promise that your life here on Earth will improve because someone (a vast powerful important someone) always loving and caring about you.

And possibly more important that that you get a system that says "Yes you are the problem, but here is what you can do about it". Ironically people like hearing that because we all have issues of guilty and self-doubt and we all long for easing of this.

We don't accept it when someone says "That wasn't your fault". If I tell you you are not sinful you simply don't accept that. It is not in our nature to believe there is nothing wrong with us. We accept much more when someone says "That was your fault, but do this and it will make it better"

Its why soldiers got to families of fallen men to apologies to them that they survived and their son or daughter didn't. They actually have nothing to apologies for but that doesn't stop them feeling guilty over the face. There are evolutionary reasons for this but I won't bore you with them.

Religion manipulates these aspects of human nature, and manipulates them very well. It is often asked on the Christian forum that don't atheists like myself want someone to forgive us our "sins" (which is basically anything we feel bad about). Why would we not want that? It is a bit of a window into the mind of the theist. When ever I hear that I always point out what I would have thought would have been obvious, that God forgiving me is pointless since God isn't actually the someone I've hurt throughout my life. Unless the people I have hurt or upset in my life forgive me then what is the point.

Any time I say that that point seems to be completely lost on the Christians, which to me hints quite strongly at why a lot of them are turning to the religion. Religion shifts all fault and guilt to a single point. The religion makes everything ultimately about God, which means that God can ultimately forgive everything. One cannot underestimate how appealing that can be to some people. Instead of having to feel guilty about tons of individual things one has done throughout life it can be directed to one single point. And all you have to do is please God and your "sin", all of it, is forgiven. You may feel, with this new feeling of forgiveness, that you want to go around to all the people you have hurt anyway. But whether or not they forgive you doesn't actually matter. God forgives you, you are saved, he loves you. Happy days.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Ultimately, the monochromatic picture of faith that you paint - it's simply there to ease us irrational folks into the grave - is just a matter of personal opinion, not fact.

Which allows you to dismiss it without serious consideration because you don't want it to be true ...

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Sorry, I don't follow your train of thought here.

If I'm as deluded as the people on the other side of the debate I should therefore understand what it is like to be that deluded.

seamus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I've yet to find any compelling evidence regarding the non-existence of God. Therefore, given my compelling personal experiences (which of course must be delusional episodes), I choose to believe in Him. So much for nails in the coffin!

This is a bit of fallacy. It's impossible to prove that something *doesn't* exist unless we at least have some parameters which define that something. Then you can disprove that things existence by showing that the parameters on which that thing relies are incorrect or impossible.

That is, I can theorise about the existence of a type of particle with particular properties. Someone else can prove that a particle with such properties cannot exist in this universe.

However, if I just theorise about a particle and give no further information, then the existence of that particle cannot be disproven.

In this case, the onus is on *me* to prove that this thing exists, rather than everyone else to prove it doesn't.

The same goes for God. You are free to believe that one exists, but the onus is on you to prove it to other people, not on other people to prove you wrong.

Zombrex

That is an excellent point.

Throughout history theists have simply shifted what their god's properties are when it was discovered that what they originally claimed their god was responsible for was actually a natural phenomena.

The ability to do this means that it is wholly impossible to demonstrate their god doesn't exist because what their god is actually supposed to do is not defined.

And I'm pretty sure the theists realise this, which is why they do it in the first place.

condra

If I was a theist I would argue that the ghost in Three Men And A Baby is proof of supernatural stuff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vF2f__k0Pnw

See? Its a ghost! There is nothing else it could be.