This is why I think God exists.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

Says who?

Says pragmatism and common sense. If you paint a painting. It is yours until it is sold. Indeed, if you found a nation, it is yours until you pass away, or change institutions and the like to allow broader leadership or indeed if someone usurps it.

One can dispute the ownership of a territory, its laws, or anything else, but ultimately if those laws are binding on you. They are binding on you.

Wicknight wrote: »

Who says it is wrong to do this?

See above.

Sam Vimes

raah! wrote: »

Ok well fine tuning is about the formation of planets. And things like that. The formation of the larger elements.

That is wrong. Fine tuning is called "fine tuning" for a reason. There would be no planets, no complex elements, which formed in the planets, and then no complex arrangements of those atoms, called life. Unless you want to speculate some kind of magic life? But that's different, and this contradicts the position you hold when you criticise things like religion.

There would be no elements, planets or complex arrangements of these atoms as we know them but that does not mean that there could not have been a completely different kind of universe with completely different kinds of atoms. This does not mean "magic life", it means a universe that follows different laws to our one. "Follows different laws" =/= "magic". If we were to pop into such a universe then the things that we are able to do would appear "magic" to them and vice versa. This is still the problem with the fine tuning argument that makes the assumption that life as we know it is a target to be reached. nozzferrahhtoo's point covers it quite well:

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Deal out 52 cards in a row. Not too special is it? However I challenge you to work out the probability of having got that exact hand as it was dealt. It is MASSIVELY improbable. I have quite a decent Calculator, and even it can not calculate the probability past the first 16 cards, let alone all 52.

You will likely NEVER deal the same 52 cards in that order ever again, no matter how much you try, even if your family were to take up the challenge for another 1000 generations after you. If every person alive today had dealt at the same time as you, it is likely no one else would have got the same hand.

The ONLY difference between your 52 cards, and the universe is that in only one case is someone applying retrospect and saying "We must consider it amazing that the cards we have been dealt were dealt in this exact way".

We were dealt the universe we were dealt. Simple as that. The probability of it is entirely irrelevant, and the probability of it in retrospect is 1 in 1, because that is exactly what happened.

raah! wrote: »

If you think this then please re-read the post. This is completely wrong. You asked me to go from fine tuning to benevolence etc. and I did that. If you think benevolence can't be arrived at, respond to the argument.

Unless I'm thinking of a different post you said "To extrapolate things like "benevolence" from that isn't hard". Well I think it is hard and a declaration that you think it's not doesn't explain how it's not. continued below...

raah! wrote: »

The multiplicity of religions, and which "supernatural acts" to believe, is an argument which occurs higher up in this, it is not pertinent to "fine tuning allows for theistic conceptions of god".

Also, I don't believe I ever gave any reasons why i think the universe is fine tuned.

Well I would argue the claims aren't that difference. I would also like to highlight, this position, the one you are stating, is massively different to "the idea of a theism derived from fine tuning is ridiculous".

Theism, as distinct from deism, makes specific claims about the thing that did the fine tuning. A deist says "something must have created the universe" where the theist says things along the lines of "god cured my cancer" and "god will allow me to live forever if I believe that a man rose from the dead 2000 years ago". I simply cannot see how one can make the leap from one to the other. Please explain how one chooses one supernatural story to believe over all others, which is what separates theism from deism

krudler

Jakkass wrote: »

One can dispute the ownership of a territory, its laws, or anything else, but ultimately if those laws are binding on you. They are binding on you.



See above.

Well according to some faiths we shouldnt work on Saturdays, even to the point of flicking a lightswitch, do you follow this? course not, because that doesnt apply to you as its not your religion, same as athiests, you dont believe, so the laws dont apply. simples. Theres a difference between state laws which prevent theft or murder, those are something you submit to be being a citizen of a country.

philologos

The context, was whether or not hell was justified as started from this post by strobe onwards.

As for the Orthodox Jewish practice of keeping Shabbat. Even in their theology, Gentiles (non-Jews) are exempt from keeping Torah, with the exception of the Noachide Laws.

If you find that I am of Jewish ancestry on my maternal side, and that Christianity is false, then indeed I am in big trouble

Dades

I'm totally down with Jewish Orthodoxy.

In fact I was wearing this exact shirt yesterday!

raah!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

There would be no elements, planets or complex arrangements of these atoms as we know them but that does not mean that there could not have been a completely different kind of universe with completely different kinds of atoms. This does not mean "magic life", it means a universe that follows different laws to our one.

The point of fine tuning is the fineness of the tuning. It says the universe would be "different". Even this is enough to make those wild extrapolations that have been made. Yes different constants could make different things, but the base of fine tuning that there was one set of constants, is unaffected by that.

"Follows different laws" =/= "magic". If we were to pop into such a universe then the things that we are able to do would appear "magic" to them and vice versa. This is still the problem with the fine tuning argument that makes the assumption that life as we know it is a target to be reached. nozzferrahhtoo's point covers it quite well:

This is back to your saying that it is a misunderstanding of probability. It suggests you haven't been listening. Probability doesn't come into it, fine tuning is based on there being one choice. That's not something that's known. But arguing about probability in the light of this only shows you don't understand the premises of fine tuning.

Unless I'm thinking of a different post you said "To extrapolate things like "benevolence" from that isn't hard". Well I think it is hard and a declaration that you think it's not doesn't explain how it's not. continued below...

This is ridiculous. You actually are just completely ignoring the point. I did it, I full spelled out how to go from "fine tuning" to benevolence. I didn't just state it. I can only surmise that you are doing this deliberately because you'd rather not argue against the actual points.

Theism, as distinct from deism, makes specific claims about the thing that did the fine tuning. A deist says "something must have created the universe" where the theist says things along the lines of "god cured my cancer" and "god will allow me to live forever if I believe that a man rose from the dead 2000 years ago". I simply cannot see how one can make the leap from one to the other.

Well again, it was about travelling from a purely deistic something, to a deistic benevolent something, and from a benevolent deciding supernatural something to a statement that theism is not hard to arrive at. And I also said it's not a direct logical passage. It seems you are only trying to divert attention from your first request and my first statement, by saying things like this.

Our last thread went in circles, but given the evidence here of you completely ignoring points and then just repeating the things I replied to, or pretending that you wanted to know something else, I place the blame at your feet.

Please explain how one chooses one supernatural story to believe over all others, which is what separates theism from deism

What separates theism from deism is the invervention of the god in the world. It is not about what this intervention is. Once you say "yes, god can and does interact" then it's an issue to believe this or that story over others.

Sam Vimes

raah! wrote: »

The point of fine tuning is the fineness of the tuning. It says the universe would be "different". Even this is enough to make those wild extrapolations that have been made. Yes different constants could make different things, but the base of fine tuning that there was one set of constants, is unaffected by that.


This is back to your saying that it is a misunderstanding of probability. It suggests you haven't been listening. Probability doesn't come into it, fine tuning is based on there being one choice. That's not something that's known. But arguing about probability in the light of this only shows you don't understand the premises of fine tuning.

Yes raah! I understand the premises of fine tuning. You've used this line of argument before and I find it very strange. My response to the fine tuning argument is to say that its premises are flawed but you don't seem to think that this is a valid form of argumentation. For some reason you seem to think that any argument must accept the other person's assumptions and work from there. I'll try again to explain the problem with this logic by an example:

My axiom is that god doesn't exist. I'd like you to now argue why god does exist while accepting the assumption that I have just made.

you of course can't do that, it's impossible to argue that god does exist while working on the assumption that he doesn't. The only way to argue your position is to argue against my assumption. But you seem to think that I shouldn't do that......

raah! wrote: »

This is ridiculous. You actually are just completely ignoring the point. I did it, I full spelled out how to go from "fine tuning" to benevolence. I didn't just state it. I can only surmise that you are doing this deliberately because you'd rather not argue against the actual points.

Well again, it was about travelling from a purely deistic something, to a deistic benevolent something, and from a benevolent deciding supernatural something to a statement that theism is not hard to arrive at. And I also said it's not a direct logical passage. It seems you are only trying to divert attention from your first request and my first statement, by saying things like this.

Our last thread went in circles, but given the evidence here of you completely ignoring points and then just repeating the things I replied to, or pretending that you wanted to know something else, I place the blame at your feet.

What separates theism from deism is the invervention of the god in the world. It is not about what this intervention is. Once you say "yes, god can and does interact" then it's an issue to believe this or that story over others.

I think I missed the part where you spelled out how to go from fine tuning to benevolance. Could you please explain it again? You say it's not a direct logical passage so what kind of a passage is it? The problem is that from where I'm standing you are right to say that it's not a direct logical passage because what it actually is is a massive leap based on fuzzy logic and wishful thinking. So if it's not a logical passage, what kind of passage is it, if not fuzzy wishful thinking? What I'm interested in is how one arrives at the beliefs that one actually believes, not how one arrives at a position a thousand logical steps before the one one actually believes.

Zillah

raah! wrote: »

Fine tuning is called "fine tuning" for a reason. There would be no planets, no complex elements, which formed in the planets, and then no complex arrangements of those atoms, called life.

This is simply not the case. A study was done a few years ago where they created hypothetical universes by feeding variations of the physical constants into the model. What resulted were numerous alternate universes with all sorts of peculiar phenomena. The most exotic of which would have been dark stars...massive collections of matter that undergo fusion as we know it, but radiate no light. How cool is that? Suffice to say, to assert that our exact universe is the only one that could result in something self aware is naive at best.

This is, of course, disregarding the fact that any universe capable of being observed, by definition, has to be one capable of supporting life (or the equivalent). Stating that our universe has features that allow us to exist as though it were anyway relevant is a straight-up tautology.

I'm doing my best to track down the article where I read about the study but it was many years ago and the keywords on google are not exactly distinctive.

raah!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes raah! I understand the premises of fine tuning. You've used this line of argument before and I find it very strange. My response to the fine tuning argument is to say that its premises are flawed but you don't seem to think that this is a valid form of argumentation. For some reason you seem to think that any argument must accept the other person's assumptions and work from there.

That's not what you've been doing, and I pointed that out earlier. When I said :

Ok, so if we take fine tuning, which is one such deistic argument. There is not need to cite the anthropic prinicple now, or the multiverse jive, because these are arguments in counter to fine tuning.

You don't say "yeah it was fine tuned buuut anthropic principle", you say "No! Anthropic principle!"

It seemed that you were trying to argue from within the one universe premis against fine tuning. Maybe you weren't though, I will re-read. I retract my statement about you making circles... cough.

I'll try again to explain the problem with this logic by an example:

My axiom is that god doesn't exist. I'd like you to now argue why god does exist while accepting the assumption that I have just made.

you of course can't do that, it's impossible to argue that god does exist while working on the assumption that he doesn't. The only way to argue your position is to argue against my assumption. But you seem to think that I shouldn't do that......

I believe what I said above responds to this.

I think I missed the part where you spelled out how to go from fine tuning to benevolance. Could you please explain it again? You say it's not a direct logical passage so what kind of a passage is it? The problem is that from where I'm standing you are right to say that it's not a direct logical passage because what it actually is is a massive leap based on fuzzy logic and wishful thinking. So if it's not a logical passage, what kind of passage is it, if not fuzzy wishful thinking? What I'm interested in is how one arrives at the beliefs that one actually believes, not how one arrives at a position a thousand logical steps before the one one actually believes.

So fine tuning, what does that mean? The universe was "fine tuned" so that planets, people, astronomers form. The so that is the important part. And that is implied in the term "fine tuned". So the universe was made "so that", for a reason. Reason suggests consciousness, and you can go on from there if you please.

You get to gayness being bad once you have established your theistic communicating version of god, which I do no think is difficult to get to from any deistic conception. A deistic conception is a thing which made the universe, and then stopped making things. So if this thing outside of hte laws of physics can make things, then he can make things, if he can make these laws, and fine tune them, then it's not ridiculous to think that he can change or break them. This is not a direct logical connection, mind you. But you must rid yourself of the notion that you me, or anyone operates under such direct connections 100% of the time

Fine tuning to benevolence is direct. Fine tuning to theism is not. Fine tuning renders theism possible. It means it's a possible explanation of for some things.

Sam Vimes

raah! wrote: »

That's not what you've been doing, and I pointed that out earlier. When I said :

It seemed that you were trying to argue from within the one universe premis against fine tuning. Maybe you weren't though, I will re-read. I retract my statement about you making circles... cough.

I believe what I said above responds to this.

I did argue within one universe against one aspect of the fine tuning argument, about life forming, and then you mentioned another about the formation of atoms and complex elements etc so I took a different tack. Bear in mind that my argument does not require the existence of other universes, just that this is not the only universe in which it is possible for some kind of life to evolve. It just requires the possibility of other universes.

raah! wrote: »

Fine tuning to benevolence is direct. Fine tuning to theism is not. Fine tuning renders theism possible. It means it's a possible explanation of for some things.

I still don't understand how fine tuning to benevolence is direct. If I was all powerful and benevolent I could have made the universe a hell of a lot better than it is today and I'm sure the people of Haiti and Pakistan would agree with me. If anything the universe shows nothing but indifference to our well being as far as I can see

But you at least acknowledge that fine tuning to theism is not a direct link. So what kind of link is it? Bear in mind that I'm talking about believing that the thing that did the fine tuning did specific things, e.g. raised from the dead in Israel 2000 years ago, and didn't do others

raah!

Zillah wrote: »

This is simply not the case. A study was done a few years ago where they created hypothetical universes by feeding variations of the physical constants into the model. What resulted were numerous alternate universes with all sorts of peculiar phenomena. The most exotic of which would have been dark stars...massive collections of matter that undergo fusion as we know it, but radiate no light. How cool is that? Suffice to say, to assert that our exact universe is the only one that could result in something self aware is naive at best.

I read about that study. I don't remember the exact things, but if I'm thinking of the same one, they varied certain things, and had a window in which big planets and elements can exist. Since these numbers can vary between + and - infinity then we could still argue that this is as fine as it can possibly be. If you put the number of livable universes over the number of possible universes ,which, if possible universes are determined by varying constants, the fineness of this tuning is infinite. It's zero, as a fraction.

This is, of course, disregarding the fact that any universe capable of being observed, by definition, has to be one capable of supporting life (or the equivalent). Stating that our universe has features that allow us to exist as though it were anyway relevant is a straight-up tautology.

But stating that the universe has such features is not.

I'm doing my best to track down the article where I read about the study but it was many years ago and the keywords on google are not exactly distinctive.

That would be great.

Note that the teleological implications of fine tuning are not connected to its validity.

raah!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I did argue within one universe against one aspect of the fine tuning argument, about life forming, and then you mentioned another about the formation of atoms and complex elements etc so I took a different tack. Bear in mind that my argument does not require the existence of other universes, just that this is not the only universe in which it is possible for some kind of life to evolve. It just requires the possibility of other universes.

Ok, well I guess what I said about the set of constants relates to that then.

I still don't understand how fine tuning to benevolence is direct. If I was all powerful and benevolent I could have made the universe a hell of a lot better than it is today and I'm sure the people of Haiti and Pakistan would agree with me. If anything the universe shows nothing but indifference to our well being as far as I can see

The universe allows us to exist. I think this is better than not existing. There could be other forms of life, but there are not many. There are much more universes where life doesn't exist than where it does. Though I'll level with everyone right here, this business about constants varying over infinity, is something I said just there, because they are essentially just real numbers, and the set of real numbers is infinte. So if that's wrong for some reason then it's wrong.

It is a good point and very interesting, the difference between deistic fine tuning, and theistic fine tuning. In deistic fine tuning, omnipotence isn't a given, neither is "absolute benevolence", but that we exist suggests some degree of benevolence. Because for me, existing is better than not existing. And I guess this depends on your interpretation of the universe, I think it's more nice than not nice. Living on the streets scrounging for money is not as nice as some things, but it's nicer than never having had a chance to scrounge.

But you at least acknowledge that fine tuning to theism is not a direct link. So what kind of link is it? Bear in mind that I'm talking about believing that the thing that did the fine tuning did specific things, e.g. raised from the dead in Israel 2000 years ago, and didn't do others

All it does, as far as my reasoning leads me, is to say that it's not an impossibility. And once this is the case, theistic intervention is a possible explanation for nice things that happen to you, one of which is existing.

Sam Vimes

raah! wrote: »

Ok, well I guess what I said about the set of constants relates to that then.

I missed that I think....

raah! wrote: »

The universe allows us to exist. I think this is better than not existing. There could be other forms of life, but there are not many. There are much more universes where life doesn't exist than where it does. Though I'll level with everyone right here, this business about constants varying over infinity, is something I said just there, because they are essentially just real numbers, and the set of real numbers is infinte. So if that's wrong for some reason then it's wrong.

It is a good point and very interesting, the difference between deistic fine tuning, and theistic fine tuning. In deistic fine tuning, omnipotence isn't a given, neither is "absolute benevolence", but that we exist suggests some degree of benevolence. Because for me, existing is better than not existing. And I guess this depends on your interpretation of the universe, I think it's more nice than not nice. Living on the streets scrounging for money is not as nice as some things, but it's nicer than never having had a chance to scrounge.

All it does, as far as my reasoning leads me, is to say that it's not an impossibility. And once this is the case, theistic intervention is a possible explanation for nice things that happen to you, one of which is existing.

your point there basically means that the universe is not as bad as it possibly could be in that it is possible for us to exist but you acknowledge that this shows at best some degree of benevolence. It doesn't indicate the kind of benevolence that would be expected from an all powerful benevolence though does it? That's why such a large amount of time and energy is spent (read wasted) in theism trying to explain all of the things that indicate either malevolence or at best indifference and trying to get everyone to focus on the good.

Honestly, trying to square reality with all its cruelties with the idea of an all powerful benevolence really is impossible to do without twisting yourself up in knots. The world makes a hell of a lot more sense once you realise that the universe doesn't actually care about us, that there is no reason why a good person got cancer and a bad person became a billionaire, they're just things that happened in an indifferent universe. I call it the sh!t happens philosophy :P

raah!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I missed that I think....

I said it in response to zillah's post about the coputer simulations.

your point there basically means that the universe is not as bad as it possibly could be in that it is possible for us to exist but you acknowledge that this shows at best some degree of benevolence.

Yes, in the deistic system, we cannot know if this universe was the best one. I don't see why we would suppose that there can be better ones. There might be, but we don't know. That there is one we can live in suggests some degree, yes yes.

It doesn't indicate the kind of benevolence that would be expected from an all powerful benevolence though does it? That's why such a large amount of time and energy is spent (read wasted) in theism trying to explain all of the things that indicate either malevolence or at best indifference and trying to get everyone to focus on the good.

Well, if the benevolence is all powerful, then this is the universe intended. And if he's benevolent, then it's benevolent that this universe is here.

As I said, fine tuning doesn't directly imply theism, but it helps it out a bit, if you want to use it in that way. And in the context of theism, if you say the deistic fine tuner is a theistic one (obviously this is based on something else), then this is in fact the best of all possible worlds. Those other possible universes are not as good as this one because they weren't picked.

I do agree that that time is wasted, because if you think that something done by that all knowing omnipotent definer of good and bad is malevolent, then you are simply wrong.

Honestly, trying to square reality with all its cruelties with the idea of an all powerful benevolence really is impossible to do without twisting yourself up in knots. The world makes a hell of a lot more sense once you realise that the universe doesn't actually care about us, that there is no reason why a good person got cancer and a bad person became a billionaire, they're just things that happened in an indifferent universe. I call it the sh!t happens philosophy :P[/QUOTE]

use logic please

Dades wrote: »

This thread is becoming a nightmare and the OP is going to have tough going to find any posts actually relevant to his post.

As I trawl through this thread, that is what I am finding.

Sam Vimes

raah! wrote: »

I said it in response to zillah's post about the coputer simulations.

Yes, in the deistic system, we cannot know if this universe was the best one. I don't see why we would suppose that there can be better ones. There might be, but we don't know. That there is one we can live in suggests some degree, yes yes.

Well, if the benevolence is all powerful, then this is the universe intended. And if he's benevolent, then it's benevolent that this universe is here.

As I said, fine tuning doesn't directly imply theism, but it helps it out a bit, if you want to use it in that way. And in the context of theism, if you say the deistic fine tuner is a theistic one (obviously this is based on something else), then this is in fact the best of all possible worlds. Those other possible universes are not as good as this one because they weren't picked.

I do agree that that time is wasted, because if you think that something done by that all knowing omnipotent definer of good and bad is malevolent, then you are simply wrong.

You've kind of jumped the gun here with the line "if he's benevolent, then it's benevolent that this universe is here". What we are trying to determine here is if the thing that did the fine tuning is benevolent but the above post appears to be making the assumption that it is benevolent and then declaring that this universe is the best possible one based on that assumption.

So let's step back a minute from the assumption of benevolence. you say that existing is better than not existing and that this indicates benevolence. I say that (to pick one of a billion possible examples) no cancer is better than cancer and that this indicates either malevolence or indifference. How does one counter this response to the argument for benevolence in a way that does not simply assume benevolence and declare that anyone who says cancer isn't benevolent is wrong?

raah!

Well yes, as I said, I don't think fine tuning implies theism. Theism does however imply benevolent fine tuning. If one were to start at fine tuning, and go along to theism (with all the usual middle stuff like love etc, these are made less ridiculous in the light of fine tuning), one can then go back to reasons for the fine tuned universe.

So let's step back a minute from the assumption of benevolence. you say that existing is better than not existing and that this indicates benevolence. I say that (to pick one of a billion possible examples) no cancer is better than cancer and that this indicates either malevolence or indifference. How does one counter this response to the argument for benevolence in a way that does not simply assume benevolence and declare that anyone who says cancer isn't benevolent is wrong?

This is not necessarily a problem for the deistic conception in which the thing only had a choice of a few life creating constants. If it were constant, it could only pick the best, and the best might still have bad things.

The deistic conception also ceases to interfere, the universe is there and created. We can really only talk about the one thing that it did, which was create a universe, of a small little choice of universes (I'm only going along with this statement here), but he chose one with people and heavy elements. There is a problem in that we don't know how good these other universes were, we don't really have a standard of saying "cancer isn't nice", there might have been super cancer in those other universes. But I accept that whether or not creating the universe was a benevolent act is open to how you see the universe. However, an additional point is that, creating the universe, whether or not it was benevolent, gains teleological signifigance by being created. It was meant to be created.

Sam Vimes

raah! wrote: »

Well yes, as I said, I don't think fine tuning implies theism. Theism does however imply benevolent fine tuning. If one were to start at fine tuning, and go along to theism (with all the usual middle stuff like love etc, these are made less ridiculous in the light of fine tuning), one can then go back to reasons for the fine tuned universe.

This is not necessarily a problem for the deistic conception in which the thing only had a choice of a few life creating constants. If it were constant, it could only pick the best, and the best might still have bad things.

The deistic conception also ceases to interfere, the universe is there and created. We can really only talk about the one thing that it did, which was create a universe, of a small little choice of universes (I'm only going along with this statement here), but he chose one with people and heavy elements. There is a problem in that we don't know how good these other universes were, we don't really have a standard of saying "cancer isn't nice", there might have been super cancer in those other universes. But I accept that whether or not creating the universe was a benevolent act is open to how you see the universe. However, an additional point is that, creating the universe, whether or not it was benevolent, gains teleological signifigance by being created. It was meant to be created.

Yes theism implies benevolance. That's actually stepping further along the path that I asked you to step back on. The logical order is benevolence implies theism. Once you get to theism you have a hell of a lot of attributes applied that go well beyond simply benevolence. I'm asking how you determine benevolence beyond simply assuming it.

Also, if the best still contains bad things then the creator is not all powerful. The good old Euthyphro dilemma. You say that we don't really have a standard to say "cancer isn't nice" but you said "existing is better than not existing". What standard did you use to make this judgement, other than an assuming benevolence when benevolence is the very thing we are attempting to determine?

candy-gal1

candy-gal1 wrote: »

Is it just for me then?!
Why would you not want that? just curious, as i would love it!!!

It sounds awful

MagicMarker wrote: »

I feel the same, I would rather be alive than dead. I think most would feel that way.

When you're dead though, you won't know it!

I'd be curious to see what the world looks like, but forever or even more than a couple centuries...? Yuck no thanks

Jakkass wrote: »

Says pragmatism and common sense. If you paint a painting. It is yours until it is sold. Indeed, if you found a nation, it is yours until you pass away, or change institutions and the like to allow broader leadership or indeed if someone usurps it.

One can dispute the ownership of a territory, its laws, or anything else, but ultimately if those laws are binding on you. They are binding on you.

If the dependent clauses are trying to kill me

raah!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes theism implies benevolance. That's actually stepping further along the path that I asked you to step back on. The logical order is benevolence implies theism. Once you get to theism you have a hell of a lot of attributes applied that go well beyond simply benevolence. I'm asking how you determine benevolence beyond simply assuming it.

Well what I said with respect to theism and fine tuning, was that a fine tuned creation renders theistic things like "miracles" not ridiculous. It is things like these, and what most religions say that ensures benevolence. The assumption, which is obviously a big one in religions, is that those miracles are the ones to pick. Which is what you were referencing back there. Or those signs of benevolence, or signs of whatever.

Also, if the best still contains bad things then the creator is not all powerful.

This isn't generally a problem for deistic systems. And once the creator is all poweful, those bad things were intended and therefore not bad.

The good old Euthyphro dilemma. You say that we don't really have a standard to say "cancer isn't nice" but you said "existing is better than not existing". What standard did you use to make this judgement, other than an assuming benevolence when benevolence is the very thing we are attempting to determine?

Again, all my statement there is based on, is that I like existing. I think everyone likes existing to some extent. About cancer, some people opt for immediate euthanasia, some people keep slugging, some people choose to kill themselves in the face of an unpleasant existence, some people choose to stick it out, and some people choose to interprate it as pleasant. It would be very difficult however, to interpret it as meaningless in the light of a universe which was created for any reason. And I should have said it further back, only for some people are there implications of benevolence, but it's logically implicit that there is meaning in a fine tuned universe.

Sam Vimes

raah! wrote: »

Well what I said with respect to theism and fine tuning, was that a fine tuned creation renders theistic things like "miracles" not ridiculous. It is things like these, and what most religions say that ensures benevolence. The assumption, which is obviously a big one in religions, is that those miracles are the ones to pick. Which is what you were referencing back there. Or those signs of benevolence, or signs of whatever.

I think you might have been getting at this point when you said "those miracles are the ones to pick" but anyway, you are correct to say that once you have got over the hump of a theistic creator that does indeed make things like miracles non-ridiculous. The problem is that even in a universe where miracles are non-ridiculous, the fact remains that >99% of supernatural claims are still false because they are mutually contradictory and I have never seen any way to decide which ones are true and which are false that amounted to any more than simply picking the ones you like or more commonly the ones you were raised to believe are true. So, still making the assumption of a fine tuner, how does one come to sift through the millions and millions of contradictory claims about the nature of the thing that did the fine tuning and decide which claims are true above all others?

raah! wrote: »

This isn't generally a problem for deistic systems. And once the creator is all poweful, those bad things were intended and therefore not bad.
Again, all my statement there is based on, is that I like existing. I think everyone likes existing to some extent. About cancer, some people opt for immediate euthanasia, some people keep slugging, some people choose to kill themselves in the face of an unpleasant existence, some people choose to stick it out, and some people choose to interprate it as pleasant. It would be very difficult however, to interpret it as meaningless in the light of a universe which was created for any reason. And I should have said it further back, only for some people are there implications of benevolence, but it's logically implicit that there is meaning in a fine tuned universe.

I am very specifically not talking about deistic systems. I am attempting to bridge the gap between deism and belief in a specific theistic god. You seem to be contradicting yourself where you say that you judge existing to be better than not existing because you like existing. You say that we have no standard by which to judge "cancer isn't nice" but you use the standard of "things you like" to judge existing to be better than not existing. Why can't I use this standard to judge that no cancer is better than cancer? Also I don't think you'll find anyone within the sane population who would interpret cancer as pleasant. We are trying to determine if the thing that fine tuned the universe is benevolent so how do we determine this without simply assuming it and declaring that anything that doesn't appear to be good still is good based on this assumption of benevolence?

The rest of your post is again arguing for fine tuning when I have asked you to begin with the assumption of fine tuning and explain how one gets from that to a specific belief system based on a specific deity so it's covered by the above

Nemi

Galvasean wrote: »

And that is why the burden of proof always lies with the person making the claim that something happened.
"Incredible claims call for incredible evidence."

Sorry to be a pedant, but I think you mean "extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence".

I think the problem is that, more often, people try to back incredible claims with incredible evidence.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

All of science is built on this. We make a falsifiable proposition, we find evidence to support that proposition, and then the rest of the scientific community test the bejaysus out of it to find out if the proposition holds.

I think this is actually quite an idealised picture of science. Science is a human activity, with all the features of human organisation. Climategate exposed a little of that to the world.

use logic please wrote: »

As I trawl through this thread, that is what I am finding.

Can I try to shorten the way for you? I think your point was answered in this post

bnt wrote: »

The short answer to that: even if you assume some first cause, there's no reason to assume that it would have any of the qualities you associate with "God".

To my mind, this makes all the 'fine tuning' arguments pointless too. Let's say the universe was 'fine tuned' for life. That's still no proof that the 'fine tuning' was done by an omnipotent god. All you can derive from that by reason is that something may have existed with the ability to fine tune, but no more than that.

raah!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I think you might have been getting at this point when you said "those miracles are the ones to pick" but anyway, you are correct to say that once you have got over the hump of a theistic creator that does indeed make things like miracles non-ridiculous. The problem is that even in a universe where miracles are non-ridiculous, the fact remains that >99% of supernatural claims are still false because they are mutually contradictory and I have never seen any way to decide which ones are true and which are false that amounted to any more than simply picking the ones you like or more commonly the ones you were raised to believe are true. So, still making the assumption of a fine tuner, how does one come to sift through the millions and millions of contradictory claims about the nature of the thing that did the fine tuning and decide which claims are true above all others?

Well first I'll say that I don't think the majority of claims made by those many different religions are all that contradictory (specifically the big ones, those are the ones I know most about). But it's also necessary to say that miracles are not necessary for religious belief. As to how one sifts through claims about the nature of the fine tuner, that's theology pretty much. Some claims will contradict themselves others will not, different amounts of people will believe different things. This is a large area of study. And I know people on this forum don't like this, but I could really only tell you why I would pick my conception over others. I can't tell you how you can. Picking the one you like is a big part of it, but it must also be consistent with your pre-held beliefs.

I am very specifically not talking about deistic systems. I am attempting to bridge the gap between deism and belief in a specific theistic god. You seem to be contradicting yourself where you say that you judge existing to be better than not existing because you like existing. You say that we have no standard by which to judge "cancer isn't nice" but you use the standard of "things you like" to judge existing to be better than not existing.

I was merely trying to highlight the subjective nature of this benevolence. I interpreted your statement about floods and cancer to be an objective statement.

Why can't I use this standard to judge that no cancer is better than cancer? Also I don't think you'll find anyone within the sane population who would interpret cancer as pleasant.

Yes of course you can do that. At the same time, you could say cancer is unpleasant but still put there benevolently. That's why i mentioned degrees of benevolence, and a possible lack of omnipotence.

We are trying to determine if the thing that fine tuned the universe is benevolent so how do we determine this without simply assuming it and declaring that anything that doesn't appear to be good still is good based on this assumption of benevolence?

With the concept of a gradation of benevolence? The term is rather subjective as it stands, it means well meaning, there really is no way for us to determine this other than to infer from what is there. If we like it we will infer it was well meaning, if we don't we probably won't.

Sam Vimes

raah! wrote: »

Well first I'll say that I don't think the majority of claims made by those many different religions are all that contradictory (specifically the big ones, those are the ones I know most about). But it's also necessary to say that miracles are not necessary for religious belief. As to how one sifts through claims about the nature of the fine tuner, that's theology pretty much. Some claims will contradict themselves others will not, different amounts of people will believe different things. This is a large area of study. And I know people on this forum don't like this, but I could really only tell you why I would pick my conception over others. I can't tell you how you can. Picking the one you like is a big part of it, but it must also be consistent with your pre-held beliefs.

So just to be clear, if we assume that the first cause and fine tuning arguments are valid that still only brings us possibly as far as deism and not anywhere near the beliefs that all of the people that have ever mentioned these arguments to me actually believe?

Also, why is picking the one you like a part of it at all? Surely what matters is what's true and not what you want to be true? The same goes for it being consistent with your pre-held beliefs. Who says these are correct?

raah! wrote: »

I was merely trying to highlight the subjective nature of this benevolence. I interpreted your statement about floods and cancer to be an objective statement.

Yes of course you can do that. At the same time, you could say cancer is unpleasant but still put there benevolently. That's why i mentioned degrees of benevolence, and a possible lack of omnipotence.

With the concept of a gradation of benevolence? The term is rather subjective as it stands, it means well meaning, there really is no way for us to determine this other than to infer from what is there. If we like it we will infer it was well meaning, if we don't we probably won't.

So essentially there is no way to determine if the thing that did the fine tuning is benevolent and some people simply assume it is and try to explain away all the things that don't fit with this assumption?

raah!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So just to be clear, if we assume that the first cause and fine tuning arguments are valid that still only brings us possibly as far as deism and not anywhere near the beliefs that all of the people that have ever mentioned these arguments to me actually believe?

I think it brings you close enough to them. As deism is not too far from theism. I've outlined the sequence before. And regardless of whether or not they can make a connection, a connection can be made. As I've said it's not one pure logical strip from deism to theism. It's deism+other pre existing notions to theism.

Also, why is picking the one you like a part of it at all? Surely what matters is what's true and not what you want to be true? The same goes for it being consistent with your pre-held beliefs. Who says these are correct?

The people holding them say they are correct. Saying you like them is the same as saying that it agrees with your pre-existing beliefs, pretty much. Because it is possible for someone to change their pre-existing beliefs into what they like.

At the end of the day, any system can be reduced to absurdities via crafty application of skepticism. You say people accept science as the sole arbiter of truth because it is so good at verifying things. I say people accept it because it helps them eat more, sleep more, and have more sex.

So essentially there is no way to determine if the thing that did the fine tuning is benevolence and some people simply assume it is and try to explain away all the things that don't fit with this assumption?

Just going from fine tuning to benevolence without omnipotence is really quite simple. Fine tune-not omnipotent-good things there while there are also bad things. Now, nobody can measure the amount of good things in the world accurately against the number of bad things, well you could try, and people do try, and then they come up with notions of whether or not the universe is nice or not nice, but at the end of the day it depends on your inclination.

Just as much as a non-omnipotent account for a malevolent fine tuner can be made. The arguments are equivilent, but depend on one's interpretation of the universe. What is assumed (or perceived) is how nice the universe is. Your arguments have been based on pointing out bad things in the universe, the arguments of the other kind would point out good things. These are not assumptions about the Tuner, but how people perceive the world.

Now, running through all your arguments is the perceived strength of scientific materialism as a means of aquiring truth, this can be addressed in another thread if you like. The reason people say things like "you can't prove anything" in response to certain arguments from new atheists is that they act like they have proven all of their own statements, that they are perfectly internally consistent, but in reality have only applied their skepticism to religion.

And in my posts if you noticed, there is the underlying notion that scientific materialism is actually quite an extreme point of view, and that those who espouse it whilst championing themselves as upholders of logic and virtue do so because they don't understand it, and haven't expanded on it's implications properly.

caseyann

Sam vimes and raah again lol

Sam Vimes

raah! wrote: »

I think it brings you close enough to them. As deism is not too far from theism. I've outlined the sequence before. And regardless of whether or not they can make a connection, a connection can be made. As I've said it's not one pure logical strip from deism to theism. It's deism+other pre existing notions to theism.

The people holding them say they are correct. Saying you like them is the same as saying that it agrees with your pre-existing beliefs, pretty much. Because it is possible for someone to change their pre-existing beliefs into what they like.

I'm afraid you haven't really outlined the sequence. We're still struggling to assign the label "benevolent" to the thing that fine tuned the universe, let alone "raised from the dead 2000 years ago". I'm still not seeing how one breaches the gap between deism and specific theism without simply assuming to be true that which you would like to be true

raah! wrote: »

At the end of the day, any system can be reduced to absurdities via crafty application of skepticism. You say people accept science as the sole arbiter of truth because it is so good at verifying things. I say people accept it because it helps them eat more, sleep more, and have more sex.

Helping me to eat more, sleep more and have more sex are three examples of science demonstrating its ability to produce reliable results.

raah! wrote: »

Just going from fine tuning to benevolence without omnipotence is really quite simple. Fine tune-not omnipotent-good things there while there are also bad things. Now, nobody can measure the amount of good things in the world accurately against the number of bad things, well you could try, and people do try, and then they come up with notions of whether or not the universe is nice or not nice, but at the end of the day it depends on your inclination.

Just as much as a non-omnipotent account for a malevolent fine tuner can be made. The arguments are equivilent, but depend on one's interpretation of the universe. What is assumed (or perceived) is how nice the universe is. Your arguments have been based on pointing out bad things in the universe, the arguments of the other kind would point out good things. These are not assumptions about the Tuner, but how people perceive the world.

The only explanations that make sense in this universe are:
1. A benevolent but non-omnipotent "fine tuner"
2. No fine tuner
3. An omnipotent but non-benevolent fine tuner.

you can argue all you want that we have no standard by which to judge "cancer isn't nice" but this makes the term benevolent completely meaningless, it's just a label that you assign to whatever a particular being decides to do. The word benevolent has a specific definition, you gave a good one yourself when you said "well meaning". A fine tuner that is omnipotent but still allows all of the suffering that exists in this universe cannot be well meaning, it just doesn't make any sense. This is why religious people have been puzzling for thousands of years over the problem of how suffering exists if god is both benevolent and all powerful. And they would stop puzzling over it the minute they considered the possibility that if there is a god, it cannot be both benevolent and omnipotent.

raah! wrote: »

Now, running through all your arguments is the perceived strength of scientific materialism as a means of aquiring truth, this can be addressed in another thread if you like. The reason people say things like "you can't prove anything" in response to certain arguments from new atheists is that they act like they have proven all of their own statements, that they are perfectly internally consistent, but in reality have only applied their skepticism to religion.

And in my posts if you noticed, there is the underlying notion that scientific materialism is actually quite an extreme point of view, and that those who espouse it whilst championing themselves as upholders of logic and virtue do so because they don't understand it, and haven't expanded on it's implications properly.

Well I haven't really said anything about scientific materialism but I'll say to you the same thing I say to everyone who comes in here to tell us all about the failings of scientific materialism before going on about how they know their beliefs are true even though they're totally different to the last guy who came in to tell us all about the failings of scientific materialism: once you go beyond science and into the realms normally occupied by religion there is no way to reliably tell truth from falsehood. There is a reason why there are 33,000 branches of christianity alone and one atomic theory: it's becauise science verifies things where the religious make things up and declare them to be true and people just go with whatever belief they like without ever being able to know if what they believe is even close to the truth

raah!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm afraid you haven't really outlined the sequence. We're still struggling to assign the label "benevolent" to the thing that fine tuned the universe, let alone "raised from the dead 2000 years ago". I'm still not seeing how one breaches the gap between deism and specific theism without simply assuming to be true that which you would like to be true

Universe is tuned - Universe is nice - Tuner is benevolent

As to why people believe in their specific religions, I'm sure you've heard them give their own reasons. And in the light of a fine tuning deistic god, they are not massive leaps, but not directly derived. They are derived from those secondary reasons given to upgrade to theism. That god talked to them or something.

Helping me to eat more, sleep more and have more sex are three examples of science demonstrating its ability to produce reliable results.

There is no system which doesn't produce reliable results, people don't take things up unless they do something. Religion helps people be happy, or helps certain people control certain other people. The premises of each religion lead to conclusions, because these are metaphysical premises, the conclusions are much more solid than those of science. Science has so much space for progression because material things are far more c omplex than metaphysical absolutes.

The only explanations that make sense in this universe are:
1. A benevolent but non-omnipotent "fine tuner"
2. No fine tuner
3. An omnipotent but non-benevolent fine tuner.

I disagree that there are only three, but without going into it, number 3 is completely ridiculous here, for reasons I've already outlined.

you can argue all you want that we have no standard by which to judge "cancer isn't nice" but this makes the term benevolent completely meaningless, it's just a label that you assign to whatever a particular being decides to do. The word benevolent has a specific definition, you gave a good one yourself when you said "well meaning". A fine tuner that is omnipotent but still allows all of the suffering that exists in this universe cannot be well meaning, it just doesn't make any sense.

Well this can easily be resolved by saying "it meant well" or that "it think suffering is nice", that's what it means to mean well. We could come up with millions of solutions to this really, as long as we are not constrained by "a universe in which things suffer is a bad universe", or "for a deity to be well meaning the universe must be perfect"

This is why religious people have been puzzling for thousands of years over the problem of how suffering exists if god is both benevolent and all powerful. And they would stop puzzling over it the minute they considered the possibility that if there is a god, it cannot be both benevolent and omnipotent.

I've never seen this particular problem as insoluble. Particularly from a theistic point of view, and it is a contradictory statement for religious people who take their definition of good from God. If we can relate "doing good things for people" to "well meaning" which is fairly obvious, then there is no problem.

Well I haven't really said anything about scientific materialism but I'll say to you the same thing I say to everyone who comes in here to tell us all about the failings of scientific materialism before going on about how they know their beliefs are true even though they're totally different to the last guy who came in to tell us all about the failings of scientific materialism: once you go beyond science and into the realms normally occupied by religion there is no way to reliably tell truth from falsehood. There is a reason why there are 33,000 branches of christianity alone and one atomic theory: it's becauise science verifies things where the religious make things up and declare them to be true and people just go with whatever belief they like without ever being able to know if what they believe is even close to the truth

There is more than one atomic theory for one thing. The one that is accepted now is accepted becuase it can be used to make predictions, used for things like food etc.

We've been over things like logic also, that is how everyone validates everything. The reason there are so many branches of religion is that their axiomatic grounding is more complex than that of science. To say science is the only system which can verify things is wrong, and we were over that in the other thread.

Sam Vimes

raah! wrote: »

Universe is tuned - Universe is nice - Tuner is benevolent

As to why people believe in their specific religions, I'm sure you've heard them give their own reasons. And in the light of a fine tuning deistic god, they are not massive leaps, but not directly derived. They are derived from those secondary reasons given to upgrade to theism. That god talked to them or something.

There is more than one atomic theory for one thing. The one that is accepted now is accepted becuase it can be used to make predictions, used for things like food etc.

We've been over things like logic also, that is how everyone validates everything. The reason there are so many branches of religion is that their axiomatic grounding is more complex than that of science. To say science is the only system which can verify things is wrong, and we were over that in the other thread.

There is no system which doesn't produce reliable results, people don't take things up unless they do something. Religion helps people be happy, or helps certain people control certain other people. The premises of each religion lead to conclusions, because these are metaphysical premises, the conclusions are much more solid than those of science. Science has so much space for progression because material things are far more c omplex than metaphysical absolutes.

Yes I've heard many people say they have had personal experience of god and no two of them have yet believed the same thing about god (or gods). If there is one god and it is possible to reliably tell the difference between an experience with this god and your mind playing tricks on you then most if not all people should come away from such experiences with at least nearly identical impressions of god and since god is supposed to be omnipotent I don't think it's a big leap to say they should be totally identical. This is quite clearly not what happens. How do you explain the vast differences in the different beliefs that people have about the supernatural if not that the methods used are at best almost totally unreliable? Saying that the axioms are more complex doesn't really explain anything (I'm not even sure what it means tbh). If the axioms are valid then they should all be the same, assuming that there is one god.

raah! wrote: »

I disagree that there are only three, but without going into it, number 3 is completely ridiculous here, for reasons I've already outlined.

Well this can easily be resolved by saying "it meant well" or that "it think suffering is nice", that's what it means to mean well. We could come up with millions of solutions to this really, as long as we are not constrained by "a universe in which things suffer is a bad universe", or "for a deity to be well meaning the universe must be perfect"

I've never seen this particular problem as insoluble. Particularly from a theistic point of view, and it is a contradictory statement for religious people who take their definition of good from God. If we can relate "doing good things for people" to "well meaning" which is fairly obvious, then there is no problem.

I really don't see why it should be ridiculous that an omnipotent being could not be benevolent. The only way you seem to be able to square the two is to completely redefine the word benevolent until it no longer means "well meaning" and instead means "whatever god does". You are still just assuming that god is benevolent and from this assumption deciding that every single thing he does is benevolent regardless of how much suffering it causes. The problem of how one determines that god is benevolent without simply assuming it remains unanswered.

raah!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes I've heard many people say they have had personal experience of god and no two of them have yet believed the same thing about god (or gods). If there is one god and it is possible to reliably tell the difference between an experience with this god and your mind playing tricks on you then most if not all people should come away from such experiences with at least nearly identical impressions of god and since god is supposed to be omnipotent I don't think it's a big leap to say they should be totally identical. This is quite clearly not what happens. How do you explain the vast differences in the different beliefs that people have about the supernatural if not that the methods used are at best almost totally unreliable?

Well the way I see difference of experience is well captured in the hindu religion. One fellow wearing different hats. People describe the hats differently. Then again, this isn't an area that I have gone into much thought about.

Saying that the axioms are more complex doesn't really explain anything (I'm not even sure what it means tbh). If the axioms are valid then they should all be the same, assuming that there is one god.

Well taking christianity as an example, there's the bible. Which is massive, and can be interpreted differently. That's what I would call a complex axiom, though it's not exactly an axiom when viewed in light of pre-existing deity who put it there, but one might say it's validity is. Either way, it's complex.

I really don't see why it should be ridiculous that an omnipotent being could not be benevolent. The only way you seem to be able to square the two is to completely redefine the word benevolent until it no longer means "well meaning" and instead means "whatever god does". You are still just assuming that god is benevolent and from this assumption deciding that every single thing he does is benevolent regardless of how much suffering it causes. The problem of how one determines that god is benevolent without simply assuming it remains unanswered.

Yes sorry, i didn't quite understand number three there, I was stuck saying that christian apologetics are silly. Yes number three is a good point actually. I don't think you get from fine tuning to omnipotence though, all you get from fine tuning is fine tuning, and intentionality and all that. It gets very confusing to be arguing from different perspectives all the time

Sam Vimes

raah! wrote: »

Well the way I see difference of experience is well captured in the hindu religion. One fellow wearing different hats. People describe the hats differently. Then again, this isn't an area that I have gone into much thought about.

Well taking christianity as an example, there's the bible. Which is massive, and can be interpreted differently. That's what I would call a complex axiom, though it's not exactly an axiom when viewed in light of pre-existing deity who put it there, but one might say it's validity is. Either way, it's complex.

An awful lot of the world religions hold the position that only believers of that religion will be "saved" or whatever is associated with that religion, basically that good things happen to people who follow the faith and bad things to those who don't. If it's one guy wearing different hats doing all of this, surely he must be fcuking with our heads? Why else would he give every person he gives an experience to a different impression of his (or their) nature?

Does it not make an awful lot more sense to just say that most (if not all) of the people who think they've experienced god are simply wrong?

raah! wrote: »

Yes sorry, i didn't quite understand number three there, I was stuck saying that christian apologetics are silly. Yes number three is a good point actually. I don't think you get from fine tuning to omnipotence though, all you get from fine tuning is fine tuning, and intentionality and all that. It gets very confusing to be arguing from different perspectives all the time

Good, so we're agreed

raah!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

An awful lot of the world religions hold the position that only believers of that religion will be "saved" or whatever is associated with that religion, basically that good things happen to people who follow the faith and bad things to those who don't. If it's one guy wearing different hats doing all of this, surely he must be fcuking with our heads? Why else would he give every person he gives an experience to a different impression of his (or their) nature?

Certain people being saved isn't really anything to do with the nature of the "exeperienced" deity. It's an extra tack on. And in this sense they are saying contradictory things, but I think they are fairly similar in general.

Does it not make an awful lot more sense to just say that most (if not all) of the people who think they've experienced god are simply wrong?

Heh, well it depends on one's previously existing beliefs. If you think the thing they are experiencing doesn't exist then of course it doesn't make sense. If you thikn it does exist, and that the different experience can be put down to different perception of the same thing, and those experiences are not massively different, when you read about them then saying they are just experiencing differently makes more sense.

Good, so we're agreed

Yes, on number 3 being a valid description of a possible scenario.:D

Sam Vimes

raah! wrote: »

Certain people being saved isn't really anything to do with the nature of the "exeperienced" deity. It's an extra tack on. And in this sense they are saying contradictory things, but I think they are fairly similar in general.

I wouldn't really call it an extra tack on so much as the fundamental belief of most world religions.

raah! wrote: »

Heh, well it depends on one's previously existing beliefs. If you think the thing they are experiencing doesn't exist then of course it doesn't make sense. If you thikn it does exist, and that the different experience can be put down to different perception of the same thing, and those experiences are not massively different, when you read about them then saying they are just experiencing differently makes more sense.

Well firstly I really don't think that you can just dismiss the differences here. Not all religions even include a god. The differences between world religions and even within christianity are not trivial.

My point here doesn't even need to assume that they thing they're experiencing doesn't exist, that is the conclusion that is drawn from the fact that no two experiences are the same. If no two experiences are the same of a being that's supposed to be omnipotent and therefore capable of giving everyone exactly the same experience then I find it highly unlikely that what's actually being experienced by all of them is a single omnipotent being. Why do you suppose a being who is capable of giving everyone exactly the same experience has given people experiences so different that their different interpretations have led huge levels of conflict and suffering throughout history?

raah!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I wouldn't really call it an extra tack on so much as the fundamental belief of most world religions.

So you think taht for christians the belief that non-christians are not saved is the fundamental belief for that religion? Funnily enough, if most of the world religions say that "following this religion saves you" then this is something they have in common. Hohohoahoha. That's just a bit of casuistry there. It's a tack on to the nature of the deity at least. It's the same as differently experienced experiences.

Well firstly I really don't think that you can just dismiss the differences here. Not all religions even include a god. The differences between world religions and even within christianity are not trivial.

There can be alot of similarities drawn between certain aspects of buddhism and the christian god, if that's what your hinting at. Many buddhists worship deities also. I'm not going to pretend to know about buddhists though, the junior cert was a long time ago.

My point here doesn't even need to assume that they thing they're experiencing doesn't exist, that is the conclusion that is drawn from the fact that no two experiences are the same.

Well I'm only arguing about this in the context of the differences between religions, I'm no expert on "religious experience", I asked mangaroosh some questions in his long thread but he left forever then.

But anyway, if those experiences lead to different religions, then we can say they have alot in common. In the accounts we can generally find similar points. Similar important points even. I would say they are similar in their kernal.

If no two experiences are the same of a being that's supposed to be omnipotent and therefore capable of giving everyone exactly the same experience then I find it highly unlikely that what's actually being experienced by all of them is a single omnipotent being. Why do you suppose a being who is capable of giving everyone exactly the same experience has given people experiences so different that their different interpretations have led huge levels of conflict and suffering throughout history?

Well if we focus on the christian god (since we are talking about an omnipotent theistic one, and since I am saying they are all the same), we could say that it was also very important that people have free will. That means they are free to interpret things in their own way. Free will ensures that it is their conception of the "experienced deity" rather than the. It is my opinion that free will is necessary for proper justification of beliefs, also. That's off topic though.

It could also be said that the experiences are the same but the interpretations are different. Well more appropriately, it's the same thing, being experienced differently, for me it makes more sense to account for this difference by referencing the differences in the people. Just as loads of people go look at mount everest, but their experiences are different, because they are different people.

Sam Vimes

raah! wrote: »

There can be alot of similarities drawn between certain aspects of buddhism and the christian god, if that's what your hinting at. Many buddhists worship deities also. I'm not going to pretend to know about buddhists though, the junior cert was a long time ago.

Well I'm only arguing about this in the context of the differences between religions, I'm no expert on "religious experience", I asked mangaroosh some questions in his long thread but he left forever then.

But anyway, if those experiences lead to different religions, then we can say they have alot in common. In the accounts we can generally find similar points. Similar important points even. I would say they are similar in their kernal

Well if we focus on the christian god (since we are talking about an omnipotent theistic one, and since I am saying they are all the same), we could say that it was also very important that people have free will. That means they are free to interpret things in their own way. Free will ensures that it is their conception of the "experienced deity" rather than the. It is my opinion that free will is necessary for proper justification of beliefs, also. That's off topic though.

It could also be said that the experiences are the same but the interpretations are different. Well more appropriately, it's the same thing, being experienced differently, for me it makes more sense to account for this difference by referencing the differences in the people. Just as loads of people go look at mount everest, but their experiences are different, because they are different people.

Ah the good old religious tactic of blaming everything on the followers. Free will, it explains everything apparently. You say that there is a similar kernal among religions and you are right to say that they are often (but not always) broadly similar but when dealing with an omnipotent being, "broadly similar" just doesn't cut it I'm afraid. If I tell someone my opinion on something and he then repeats this opinion to others but has not repeated it the way I said then that person has interpreted my opinion wrongly. And if there is one god and there are thousands of different interpretations of it then at most one of them is right. This is not a case where there is no right or wrong and each interpretation is valid. If there is one god there is one correct interpretation and thousands upon thousands of wrong ones. Explaining why this is with free will does not change the fact that all of these interpretations are wrong.

This is not comparable to someone's experience of climbing Everest. If one person said it made them feel elated and the other that it depressed them then both can be right but if one says that there is snow on the summit and the other that there isn't then one of them is wrong. In the same way, if one religious person says that god will save those who believe in Jesus and another that he will save those who believe in Allah then at least one of them is wrong and unlike the dichotomy of snow versus no snow, they could both be wrong. This is why such personal experience is unreliable; we can at best hope for "broadly similar" if we're lucky and this broad similarity can quite easily be accounted for by the fact that human beings share common values. If science considered something verified because the results were "broadly similar" then planes would fall out of the sky and nuclear reactors would explode. "Broadly similar" is useless, especially when dealing with a supposedly omnipotent being

raah!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Ah the good old religious tactic of blaming everything on the followers. Free will, it explains everything apparently. You say that there is a similar kernal among religions and you are right to say that they are often (but not always) broadly similar but when dealing with an omnipotent being, "broadly similar" just doesn't cut it I'm afraid.

I think it explains those things I cited anyway.

If I tell someone my opinion on something and he then repeats this opinion to others but has not repeated it the way I said then that person has interpreted my opinion wrongly.

Not necessarily, there is more than one way to say something, there is more than one way to describe the truth.

And if there is one god and there are thousands of different interpretations of it then at most one of them is right.

This isn't true because of what you said up there being not true.

This is not a case where there is no right or wrong and each interpretation is valid. If there is one god there is one correct interpretation and thousands upon thousands of wrong ones.

Again I will reference the hindu religion, there are different incarnations of god, but these can be seen as the same thing. So one person has a religious experience and sees and elephant, another sees another hindu thing, but it's the same thing. That means they are all right.

Explaining why this is with free will does not change the fact that all of these interpretations are wrong.

Different does not mean wrong.

This is not comparable to someone's experience of climbing Everest. If one person said it made them feel elated and the other that it depressed them then both can be right but if one says that there is snow on the summit and the other that there isn't then one of them is wrong. In the same way, if one religious person says that god will save those who believe in Jesus and another that he will save those who believe in Allah then at least one of them is wrong and unlike the dichotomy of snow versus no snow, they could both be wrong.

Well if we take this example, they are both saying "if you don't believe in God you'll not be saved", but like the hindus they have different ideas of what god looks like. I think they are more similar thatn dissimilar.

It's also a bit silly because, it would be absurd to say that christianity and islam are only "broadly similar" (if broadly similar is to be interpreted as some sort of bad thing for some reason), they worship the same god.

This is why such personal experience is unreliable; we can at best hope for "broadly similar" if we're lucky and this broad similarity can quite easily be accounted for by the fact that human beings share common values. If science considered something verified because the results were "broadly similar" then planes would fall out of the sky and nuclear reactors would explode. "Broadly similar" is useless, especially when dealing with a supposedly omnipotent being

Well you seem to be criticising the terminology, I do remember saying "the same in their kernal", and you can switch to this if you'd like.

munsterdevil

raah! wrote: »

Universe is tuned - Universe is nice - Tuner is benevolent

Universe is nice, really? As far as we know in the whole vast universe this pale blue dot we live on is the only place that can support life as we know it.

If this tuner was so benevolent why didn't it make the whole of the universe "nice". Why go to the bother of creating such a massive thing like the universe when there is no way possible anyone on this planet will see even a fraction of it? Hypothetically, if there is alien life out there capable now, or in the future of space travel, the chances are the combined alien civilizations of the universe (ourselves included) wouldn't see a fraction of the universe either.

The estimated age of the universe is "roughly" 14 billion years, the age of the earth is roughly 4.5 billion years, and life originated after another few billion years. Why the long gaps in between, was this benevolent creator not powerful enough to do it all at once?

raah!

Those points are addressed in the thread.

munsterdevil

Could you tell me the page? The thread is massive at this stage...

raah!

Sorry, I just finished work there, I'm off to bed soon. Those things you were saying formed a major part of the conversation between myself and sam vimes.

munsterdevil

Hmmm, I was reading over that exchange alright and not all of them were addressed, not to worry, the two of ye must be pretty exhausted at this stage!

nozzferrahhtoo

raah! wrote: »

That's not something that's known. But arguing about probability in the light of this only shows you don't understand the premises of fine tuning.

There is no "premise" there is only a wholesale assumption, which I already pointed out.

The entire flaw of the "fine tuning" argument is to falsely extrapolate that because everything falls apart if you change ONE parameter, then therefore ALL the parameters must be exactly as they are.

If you want to keep making such a false extrapolation yourself, then so be it, but do not at any stage presume to act like we did not explain the error to you. However you do make this error when you make statements like:

There would be no planets, no complex elements, which formed in the planets, and then no complex arrangements of those atoms, called life.

Again I suggest you read this:

http://www.atheist.ie/2009/04/our-tune-might-not-be-so-fine-at-all/

Sam Vimes

raah! wrote: »

I think it explains those things I cited anyway.

No it doesn't really because an all powerful being should be able to show how he actually is to people without them adding their own layers of obfuscation to it

raah! wrote: »

Not necessarily, there is more than one way to say something, there is more than one way to describe the truth.


This isn't true because of what you said up there being not true.


Again I will reference the hindu religion, there are different incarnations of god, but these can be seen as the same thing. So one person has a religious experience and sees and elephant, another sees another hindu thing, but it's the same thing. That means they are all right.


Different does not mean wrong.

Well if we take this example, they are both saying "if you don't believe in God you'll not be saved", but like the hindus they have different ideas of what god looks like. I think they are more similar thatn dissimilar.

It's also a bit silly because, it would be absurd to say that christianity and islam are only "broadly similar" (if broadly similar is to be interpreted as some sort of bad thing for some reason), they worship the same god.


Well you seem to be criticising the terminology, I do remember saying "the same in their kernal", and you can switch to this if you'd like.

I have one opinion, I mean one specific thing by it. If someone does not interpret my opinion the same way as me they are wrong. In this case different does indeed mean wrong. When there is one truth there are only two ways to interpret it, the right way and the wrong way. The same can be said of the bible. when it was written each author had one specific meaning to convey so there is one right way to interpret the bible. The only difference between my opinion and the bible is that if someone interprets my opinion differently to how I meant it I can correct them but the authors of the bible are dead so everyone is free to take whatever meaning they want from it because there is no way to verify if their interpretation is correct.


When you say "they are both saying 'if you don't believe in God you'll not be saved'" you're just playing with words; believing in "god" entails different things in each religion and believing in one of the gods requires not believing in the other. You might remember "We believe in the one true god, the father the almighty...". You are right to bring up Hinduism though, my argument does not really apply to it or any polytheistic faith. Within those faiths it is entirely possible for people to have different interpretations of the gods that are simultaneously correct but the same cannot be said of Christianity or Islam. They allow for only one interpretation to be correct, the one true interpretation, and Hinduism does not allow for the interpretations of Christianity and Islam to be correct because they exclude the other interpretations within Hinduism. If Hinduism is right then the different interpretations within Hinduism are right but Christianity and Islam are wrong and if either Christianity or Islam are right then one branch within one of them is right and all of the others are wrong. You are right to say that the different faiths are similar (because human beings are similar) but they are not the same, they are not even compatible. If they were different but compatible you might have a point but they're not, so you don't

raah!

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

There is no "premise" there is only a wholesale assumption, which I already pointed out.

premise |ˌprɛmɪs|
noun Logic
a previous statement or proposition from which another is inferred or follows as a conclusion : if the premise is true, then the conclusion must be true.
• an assertion or proposition which forms the basis for a work or theory : the fundamental premise of the report.

I'm not gonna spell out to you the incorectness of what you just said, but it would be helpful for you to study this definition.

The entire flaw of the "fine tuning" argument is to falsely extrapolate that because everything falls apart if you change ONE parameter, then therefore ALL the parameters must be exactly as they are.

I read that in the last post, only one paramater is necessary to declare fine tuning. The cosmological constant. Saying you can "vary the others to make up with this" is the same as not changing anything. It's a very weak argument. It's just saying "what if you don't change anything, then it would be the same". There are other parameters there, which can be varied to within like 20% or something of their values, none of them are as fine as the cosmological constant (mind you, I read about all this about 6 years ago). I showed how 20% is enough to be called fine in the light of an infinite set, like the real numbers.

If you want to keep making such a false extrapolation yourself, then so be it, but do not at any stage presume to act like we did not explain the error to you. However you do make this error when you make statements like:

Yeah, because if you didn't change the parameters, they wouldn't be changed! That's your super powered argument. The point is the balance is fine. What's more there is more than one fined tuned constant, stephen hawking gives an example of one. Another fact is you've misinterpreted it completely. Another thing to note is that, where i'm sure you love the old argument from authority to explain why you believe everything you do, note that fine tuning was come up with by physicists who know far more than you about it.

Now, I'll also say, I don't care about the fine tuned argument. If I hear a counter to it, like for example the fact that there are multiverses all over the gaff or something like that. I'll go "huh" at the moment, these things saying "if there's an infinite number of choices it will happen eventually" just show a massive misunderstanding.

raah!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No it doesn't really because an all powerful being should be able to show how he actually is to people without them adding their own layers of obfuscation to it

Well are we talking about an omnipotent one now or the christian one? There are a million answers with the christian one such as he wanted faith, or he did this or that. The "should be able" is on thing, but would people be able to comprehend it. And you could say, he could miracle it so they could, which would involve changing many things about the universe, and also serve as a detriment to free will.

Free will is a pretty massive all invasive thing. If you remove it you see how much has been removed. It's free will at the end of the day that makes people different from rocks.

I have one opinion, I mean one specific thing by it. If someone does not interpret my opinion the same way as me they are wrong.

Ok, say you have such an opinion, and then goes on and is said in french and in german. That's differently phrased but the same. Not all opinions are like this either and not all opinions are fully right. Some only in their kernal. And again, these are things which precede picking your religion. People will cite reasons while one religion appeals to their sensibilities and another does not.

In this case different does indeed mean wrong. When there is one truth there are only two ways to interpret it, the right way and the wrong way.

When it is the case of religions, it is a massive collection of statements. It's not "one truth" it's many truths. For most religions, it would be silly to argue that their main point is not their particular deity. If you'd like to argue that religions have more important conceptual features than their respective deities then do so. Now, christianity, judaism, islam have the same deity. They're very similar religions. Their practices are different. But we can agree that when it comes to coneceptions of god, they are the exact same. We could go on to look at hindu perceptions of their ultimate god, which is that it's compassionate, omnipotent, omniscient etc. This shows it's very similar, and I wouldn't be surprised if using the nature of those words there you could prove that they can only apply to one thing.

The same can be said of the bible. when it was written each author had one specific meaning to convey so there is one right way to interpret the bible. The only difference between my opinion and the bible is that if someone interprets my opinion differently to how I meant it I can correct them but the authors of the bible are dead so everyone is free to take whatever meaning they want from it because there is no way to verify if their interpretation is correct.

Another important difference is what I mentioned yesterday about the bible's complexity. It's not one opinion.

When you say "they are both saying 'if you don't believe in God you'll not be saved'" you're just playing with words; believing in "god" entails different things in each religion and believing in one of the gods requires not believing in the other. You might remember "We believe in the one true god, the father the almighty...".

Well, If I sit here and say there is only one god, or indeed anyone does, but that there are different religions. What conclusion would the difference of religions bring you to? Note also, differing religions with almost identical definitions of god, but different practices. Now of course, some religions are more sophisticated than others, and will agree less with less peoples sensibilities, though perhaps that will not be so easily accepted in this forum.

You are right to bring up Hinduism though, my argument does not really apply to it or any polytheistic faith.

It wouldn't be difficult to argue that hinduism is in fact monotheistic, and that they are different interpretations of the one thing. People who believe in shiva believe in shiva, not the other one, and people who believe in the other one believe in the other one.

Within those faiths it is entirely possible for people to have different interpretations of the gods that are simultaneously correct but the same cannot be said of Christianity or Islam. They allow for only one interpretation to be correct, the one true interpretation, and Hinduism does not allow for the interpretations of Christianity and Islam to be correct because they exclude the other interpretations within Hinduism.

Yes, it's all well and good that religions say they are the proper interpretations. But that does not mean that they are talking about different things. An obvious example of this, is the easy one, christianity and islam, they are talking (and say they are) about the same god , so this contradicts your "why doesn't god show himself the same", but suggests rather that "god's teachings" have been different at the two different times, or something like that. There are a million things we could say about the word of this or that being channelled through different people.

If Hinduism is right then the different interpretations within Hinduism are right but Christianity and Islam are wrong and if either Christianity or Islam are right then one branch within one of them is right and all of the others are wrong. You are right to say that the different faiths are similar (because human beings are similar) but they are not the same, they are not even compatible. If they were different but compatible you might have a point but they're not, so you don't

It's important to remember what we've been arguing now, the faiths are not the same, and if you accept that part in different faiths where it says "the other ones are wrong" then of course they are incompatible. But we have been aruing about them being the same, being not different, not contradictory, and I maintain that in their important points they are extremely similar. Also, it would be nice to have some multi-religion expert to talk to us about how much it is a given that the different major religions say "the other ones are going to hell/whatever", as you know, in the case of the bible, two thousand years on interpretation is not a straight forward matter.

What's more, let's take a favoured route by new athiests and say. Loads of people had a seisure and came up with a similar idea. Now it's likely that the lack of oxygen or whatever caused similar sensations/perceptions. They went on to found religions, and the most reasonable way to explain why they would say "the other ones are wrong" is that they wanted power or something like that. Or that they simply preferred their own seisure.

But looking at the religions from the outside as one can, one sees many more similarities than dissimilarities. To say that they are different because each one says "the other ones are wrong!" does not make them more different than they are similar.

Sam Vimes

raah! wrote: »

Well are we talking about an omnipotent one now or the christian one? There are a million answers with the christian one such as he wanted faith, or he did this or that. The "should be able" is on thing, but would people be able to comprehend it. And you could say, he could miracle it so they could, which would involve changing many things about the universe, and also serve as a detriment to free will.

Free will is a pretty massive all invasive thing. If you remove it you see how much has been removed. It's free will at the end of the day that makes people different from rocks.

our free will is limited in a million different ways, e.g. I do not have the free will to walk on the surface of the sun. If god cannot show his true nature and give a consistent message to everyone that he gives an experience to without affecting free will then he is not omnipotent.

raah! wrote: »

Ok, say you have such an opinion, and then goes on and is said in french and in german. That's differently phrased but the same. Not all opinions are like this either and not all opinions are fully right. Some only in their kernal. And again, these are things which precede picking your religion. People will cite reasons while one religion appeals to their sensibilities and another does not.

When it is the case of religions, it is a massive collection of statements. It's not "one truth" it's many truths. For most religions, it would be silly to argue that their main point is not their particular deity. If you'd like to argue that religions have more important conceptual features than their respective deities then do so. Now, christianity, judaism, islam have the same deity. They're very similar religions. Their practices are different. But we can agree that when it comes to coneceptions of god, they are the exact same. We could go on to look at hindu perceptions of their ultimate god, which is that it's compassionate, omnipotent, omniscient etc. This shows it's very similar, and I wouldn't be surprised if using the nature of those words there you could prove that they can only apply to one thing.


Another important difference is what I mentioned yesterday about the bible's complexity. It's not one opinion.


Well, If I sit here and say there is only one god, or indeed anyone does, but that there are different religions. What conclusion would the difference of religions bring you to? Note also, differing religions with almost identical definitions of god, but different practices. Now of course, some religions are more sophisticated than others, and will agree less with less peoples sensibilities, though perhaps that will not be so easily accepted in this forum.


It wouldn't be difficult to argue that hinduism is in fact monotheistic, and that they are different interpretations of the one thing. People who believe in shiva believe in shiva, not the other one, and people who believe in the other one believe in the other one.


Yes, it's all well and good that religions say they are the proper interpretations. But that does not mean that they are talking about different things. An obvious example of this, is the easy one, christianity and islam, they are talking (and say they are) about the same god , so this contradicts your "why doesn't god show himself the same", but suggests rather that "god's teachings" have been different at the two different times, or something like that. There are a million things we could say about the word of this or that being channelled through different people.


It's important to remember what we've been arguing now, the faiths are not the same, and if you accept that part in different faiths where it says "the other ones are wrong" then of course they are incompatible. But we have been aruing about them being the same, being not different, not contradictory, and I maintain that in their important points they are extremely similar. Also, it would be nice to have some multi-religion expert to talk to us about how much it is a given that the different major religions say "the other ones are going to hell/whatever", as you know, in the case of the bible, two thousand years on interpretation is not a straight forward matter.

What's more, let's take a favoured route by new athiests and say. Loads of people had a seisure and came up with a similar idea. Now it's likely that the lack of oxygen or whatever caused similar sensations/perceptions. They went on to found religions, and the most reasonable way to explain why they would say "the other ones are wrong" is that they wanted power or something like that. Or that they simply preferred their own seisure.

But looking at the religions from the outside as one can, one sees many more similarities than dissimilarities. To say that they are different because each one says "the other ones are wrong!" does not make them more different than they are similar.

What this all amounts to is you focussing only on the similarites in the different religions and ignoring the gaping differences to fit your theory that all religious experiences are true. A fine example of confirmation bias. Christianity and Islam do not have the "same god", they have similar gods. If the gods were the same the teachings would be the same for the same reason that if two people ask me my opinion they will get the same answer because I have only one opinion, not different ones depending on who's asking. you are right to say "it's not "one truth" it's many truths" but if two statements contradict each other they cannot both be true. No matter what kind of word play you engage in this remains a fact.

And unless every world religion is identical it remains a fact that all but one interpretation within one religion is wrong, if any of them are actually right, that is unless god is fcuking with peoples heads by giving them different messages. The idea that god is giving people the same message but people are interpreting it differently does not change the fact that everyone who interpreted it in a way other than the single way that god intended is wrong. These are not subjective opinions where there is no right or wrong, these people are making factual statements of the type "God wants you to do X", "God doesn't want you to do Y", "God performed X miracle but not Y miracle", "There is one god", "There are X gods", "God raised from the dead in Israel", "God had an angel appear to Mohammed" etc etc etc. These statements cannot all be true


You are free to choose whichever interpretation you prefer using whatever reasoning you prefer because, unlike in science, there is no way to verify which if any of the interpretations is correct. But under no circumstances can you choose to believe every interpretation because they contradict each other. They are similar but the differences are nowhere near as unimportant as you are trying to make out. You must pick a single interpretation which requires you to assert the falsehood of all of the other interpretations

MagicMarker

So, i haven't read any of the last few pages. Would I be right in assuming there's still no evidence for God?

krudler

MagicMarker wrote: »

So, i haven't read any of the last few pages. Would I be right in assuming there's still no evidence for God?

Not a shred, same as always.

Obni

use logic please wrote: »

If we consider the sequence X1, X2, X3,... There must have been something, let's call it Xn, which created itself, if there wasn't such an Xn, then nothing would ever have managed to exist, because the sequence leading to the existence of what exists now would never have started.

Your argument thus far simply states that given the assumption that time and space had a single starting point at some finite time in the past, then any sequence of cause and effect events can be traced back to some prime mover, "Xn".

use logic please wrote: »

Now, in light of the fact that we have the above problem, the fact that things do exist can be explained only the creative action of some thing which is not constrained, as people are, by time and space. This thing which transcends time and space is God.

So, now you've taken the irrational leap from calling that possible prime mover "Xn", to deciding that that "Xn" is identical to the cultural artifact "God".
I say irrational not because it isn't a possible solution, but because what started out as an apparent logical explanation, suddenly shifted gear and has become a simple declaration of faith. You creates a sequence of arguments X1 because X2 because X3 because ... because Xn-1 because <leap> God; which has no more claim to be based on logic than X1 because <leap> God or even more simply 'any claim' because <leap> God.
Your post "This is why I think God exists" should have been called "I think God exists".

use logic please wrote: »

We humans are absolutely constrained by time and space as far as I know, we cannot think outside of these parameters as far as I know, so assuming that space and time are always constraints on everything, we reach a problem.

This is a far more interesting subject for discussion. Is the true nature of the origin of the universe beyond the present or future capacity of the human brain? Without evolutionary pressure to develop a brain with extended function without immediate reproductive rewards, could it be that we have reached a natural limit (or at least a plateau) for the forseeable future?

raah!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

our free will is limited in a million different ways, e.g. I do not have the free will to walk on the surface of the sun. If god cannot show his true nature and give a consistent message to everyone that he gives an experience to without affecting free will then he is not omnipotent.

I was talking about the very most simple idea of free will. Essentially that we are capable of thinking for ourselves. Someone who is put in a box still has this kind of free will, that's what I was talking about. It can be their "will" that they get out, but they are in a box. I contrast "free will" to "no will" rather than "restricted will".

Here is the definition from which I am operating:
will 2 |wɪl|
noun
1 [usu. in sing. ] the faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action : she has an iron will | a battle of wills between children and their parents | an act of will.
• (also willpower) control deliberately exerted to do something or to restrain one's own impulses : a stupendous effort of will.
• a deliberate or fixed desire or intention : Jane had not wanted them to stay against their will | [with infinitive ] the will to live.
• the thing that one desires or ordains : the disaster was God's will.

What this all amounts to is you focussing only on the similarites in the different religions and ignoring the gaping differences to fit your theory that all religious experiences are true. A fine example of confirmation bias.

I am looking at the similarities in the accounts of God to explain the similarities in the religions. We started by talking about God. Why would God not appear the same to all the religions? I'm saying that he has pretty much, and you have progressed to argue about something else now.

I see what you are saying though, if there is one God then he will be seen the exact same way and say the exact same thing to everyone. Why is this? What kind of god are you talking about?

Christianity and Islam do not have the "same god", they have similar gods. If the gods were the same the teachings would be the same for the same reason that if two people ask me my opinion they will get the same answer because I have only one opinion, not different ones depending on who's asking.

Why if the gods are the same would the teachings be the same? You have yet to provide an argument as to why a theistic god has to tell everyone everything exactly about himself. Why he is opposed to different religions. Note that with a theistic God we have goodness by definition.

you are right to say "it's not "one truth" it's many truths" but if two statements contradict each other they cannot both be true. No matter what kind of word play you engage in this remains a fact.

And of course there are areas where the religions disagree, that's why I mentioned many facts. Yes they contradict each other, but merely repeating this does not constitute a real argument. To hold all this together you must explain why a god has to tell everyone the same thing, why does it have to be not only universally experienced (people don't generally experience things in the same way), but also universally interpreted (people do not generally interpret things in the same way).

And unless every world religion is identical it remains a fact that all but one interpretation within one religion is wrong,

Or that many religions say the same things, and if those same things are the truth then they are all right in part.

if any of them are actually right, that is unless god is fcuking with peoples heads by giving them different messages. The idea that god is giving people the same message but people are interpreting it differently does not change the fact that everyone who interpreted it in a way other than the single way that god intended is wrong.

This requires that you know how god intended it to be interpreted, or whether or not he wanted there to be one interpretation. It also implies that he's giving any message at all. Which is an important consideration.

These are not subjective opinions where there is no right or wrong, these people are making factual statements of the type "God wants you to do X", "God doesn't want you to do Y", "God performed X miracle but not Y miracle", "There is one god", "There are X gods", "God raised from the dead in Israel", "God had an angel appear to Mohammed" etc etc etc. These statements cannot all be true

Those directly contradictory ones of course cannot be true, they are not all directly contradictory. God could want to do X but not Y, the angel could have appeared to two people.

You notice that the only contradictions you've actually pointed out is when religions say "those other ones are wrong", If you can't see how that is a weak argument for their mutual contradiction then I don't know what to say.

You are free to choose whichever interpretation you prefer using whatever reasoning you prefer because, unlike in science, there is no way to verify which if any of the interpretations is correct.

Ok, please don't say "there is no way to verify", it's just wrong. We've been verifying things all day in argument, we haven't been making empircal observations recording the data and fitting it to mathematical models, we have been simply using logic. How you can say those things in the context of a debate is beyond me. And you remember in the last thread I kept saying things like "narrow, education, etc."

But under no circumstances can you choose to believe every interpretation because they contradict each other. They are similar but the differences are nowhere near as unimportant as you are trying to make out. You must pick a single interpretation which requires you to assert the falsehood of all of the other interpretations

One could pick out those similarities of the religions, and believe them all at once, just as christians pick out which parts of the bible they see as the true interpretation.

If we removed the contradictory parts what would we have? Similar religions, but with lots of extra stuff, because there are things like "God did X, God did Y" which become "God did X and Y", and with less things like "if you don't accept this one particular interpretation you're wrong". If your argument about the differences lies on that then I must say that the differences do indeed to seem overwhelmingly unimportant.