Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Big Bird and the Belief that All Beliefs are Equally Improbable
-
15-10-2020 4:43pmmr_fegelien wrote: »
Logical Reason - There's just no evidence for a God. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
1. What is extraordinary about the claim that God exists.
2. Since extraordinary appears to lie in the eye of the beholder, where is the extraordinary proof that evidence for God has to be provable (to others) in order to qualify as evidence? It seems an extraordinary claim to me.
MOD NOTE:
This thread exists so that antiskeptic may give free rein to his/her hypothesis that Empiricism is a Belief without attracting further sanctions. Any post on this general topic he/she posts in other threads will be moved here. The rules against soapboxing are suspended in this thread only - the rules of civility have not been suspended. The gloves are off but please mask up.0
Comments
-
antiskeptic wrote: »1. What is extraordinary about the claim that God exists.
It’s a self evident point.
It’s an extraordinary claim that water and wine magically turn into the real blood and body of a human who may or may not have lived 2000 years ago. And whether he lived or not, it is extraordinary to claim that he is both the son of god, and is a god, is extraordinary.
You could of course argue that people who claim to be god is somewhat of a banality at the time. I mean Caesar was declared on his deathbed - which made it much easier for Augustus to claim himself a god as he was the son of a god. Very familiar - and a very extra ordinary claim.antiskeptic wrote: »2. Since extraordinary appears to lie in the eye of the beholder, where is the extraordinary proof that evidence for God has to be provable (to others) in order to qualify as evidence? It seems an extraordinary claim to me.
These points have already been made by you in other threads and you’ve already been reprimanded for making them repeatedly without furthering the discussion - I wonder where all this I going.
Extraordinary claims are not in the eye of the beholder but extraordinary on the basis of science. It is an extraordinary claim that a person can rise from the dead - of course resurrections themselves do not confer dignity as Lazarus proves but none the less it is an extraordinary claim to rise from the dead. In much the same way as someone told me they believed in zombies - I’d ask them to provide extraordinary evidence for an extraordinary claim.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »1. What is extraordinary about the claim that God exists.It’s a self evident point.
Have another go?0 -
It’s a self evident point.
It’s an extraordinary claim that water and wine magically turn into the real blood and body of a human who may or may not have lived 2000 years ago. And whether he lived or not, it is extraordinary to claim that he is both the son of god, and is a god, is extraordinary.
It doesn't seem extraordinary to me. God existing, that is.These points have already been made by you in other threads and you’ve already been reprimanded for making them repeatedly without furthering the discussion - I wonder where all this I going.
I was banned for having the aim of driving a discussion to stalemate on what is a discussion forum. Not sure why that trangresses anything, stalemate in one area of discussion opens the door to discussion in another area (such as: "we've hit stalemate there, so how are going to progress? Call it a draw? Find another angle of attack?"
But no matter, mod decisions discussed attract bans so I can't discussExtraordinary claims are not in the eye of the beholder but extraordinary on the basis of science.
That is an extraordinary claim: that science owns the word extraordinary. Can you evidence that only science can decide what is extraordinary?
Anyway. You were going to provide me with evidence as to why a proof-to-others was required in order that something be evidenced. Forget whether that's an extraordinary claim or not. Its a claim. Can you evidence it?0 -
Any religion itself is extraordinary.
Mainly when you see how many of them came and went.
Current religions will fare the same, it is only a question of time.
Then new religions will come to an existence.0 -
patnor1011 wrote: »Any religion itself is extraordinary.
Mainly when you see how many of them came and went.
Current religions will fare the same, it is only a question of time.
Then new religions will come to an existence.0 -
Advertisement
-
Peregrinus wrote: »Which, if true, suggests that while any particular religion is extraordinary, religion in general is entirely ordinary.
Countless gods and deities are mostly forgotten. The only followers remaining are historians. I would bet 30 silver pieces that this is in store for current gods too. Since it will take quite some time I have no means to collect when proven right.0 -
patnor1011 wrote: »Countless gods and deities are mostly forgotten. The only followers remaining are historians. I would bet 30 silver pieces that this is in store for current gods too. Since it will take quite some time I have no means to collect when proven right.
But, even if it does, the death of any particular concept of god does nothing to show that concepts of god in general are extraordinary, any more than the death of a particular scientific idea would show that scientific ideas in general are extraordinary.
I think it's fair to say that ideas about god continually evolve or develop (like ideas about everything else, really). But this just underlines the point; any particular idea about god may be extraordinary when compared with all the other ideas about god, but the totality of ideas about god is not extraordinary at all; it's wholly ordinary, in the sense that all human cultures have always considered questions about god, and have proposed answers to those questions.
What would be extraordinary would be a human culture that didn't do this. But, SFAIK, there are no real-world examples of such a human culture. (Which perhaps underlines the point.)0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »I was banned for having the aim of driving a discussion to stalemate on what is a discussion forum. Not sure why that trangresses anything but no matter, mod decisions discussed attract bans so I can discuss
Mod: Carded for discussion of moderation of a previous banning and being told not raise the subject again, next time will be a ban.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »What would be extraordinary would be a human culture that didn't do this. But, SFAIK, there are no real-world examples of such a human culture. (Which perhaps underlines the point.)
Hmmm, there have been many cultures with enforced atheism just as there have been, and still are, many cultures with enforced theism. Exploration and open discussion about existence or non-existence of gods has not been a freedom broadly available to most societies until very recently. It is still not to some.
As for real-world extant examples, Buddhism predates Christianity by about six centuries and has no gods. Taoism predates Christianity by about three to four centuries and while some schools include a pantheon of deities, others are purely philosophical and do not.0 -
Hmmm, there have been many cultures with enforced atheism just as there have been, and still are, many cultures with enforced theism. Exploration and open discussion about existence or non-existence of gods has not been a freedom broadly available to most societies until very recently. It is still not to some.
Similarly there have been political regimes which [attempted to] enforce theism, although if we’re honest they more usually attempted to enforce this form of religious practice/expression over other forms of religious practice/expression. It was rarely a straight theism-versus-atheism struggle.As for real-world extant examples, Buddhism predates Christianity by about six centuries and has no gods. Taoism predates Christianity by about three to four centuries and while some schools include a pantheon of deities, others are purely philosophical and do not.
In this (sometimes meandering) thread we have sometimes skipped fairly glibly between talking about theism/belief in god and talking about religion. As you point out, the two things are not the same, but there is an obvious intersection. Two thoughts about this:
First, to some extent, whether you classify a religion as theist, atheist or capable of being either depends on your notion of “god”. If you think god has to be a person, possessed of intelligence, will, etc, then a lot of religions are atheist, or at least atheism-compatible. Whereas if you think a supernatural life-force or a transcendent reality that accounts for the material universe or something of the kind can be classed as “god”, then some of those religions become theist. So this is a fairly blurry line.
But, secondly, this may not matter for the purpose of this thread. I suggested earlier that all human cultures consider religious questions and propose answers to them and that these answers are continually evolving/being developed. I’ll go further now and say that some of those answers will be theist in nature, no matter how you understand “theos”. Or, at any rate, we have no rational reason (to borrow a phrase from the thread header) to expect that ideas that can be classed as theistic will disappear from the range of ideas that this process generates.0 -
Advertisement
-
There is not a single rational reason for any adult of sound mind and judgement to believe in any god.
Unless of course you live in a priest ridden conformist society hell bent(excuse the pun) on making anyones lives a misery if they don't conform. Ask any Irish parent why they pushed their kid to holy communion/confirmation and the answer will be..."ahh sure I wouldn't like em to stand out"
Or "where would they go to school??'
Thanks be ta f**k things are changing0 -
You also have to consider the social ramifications of openly stating you don't subscribe to the dominant local religion. These days, in this country, this isn't the issue it once was but up until a few decades ago publicly stating you were an atheist would likely get you socially ostracised or worse. In some countries and some religions, apostasy is still a criminal offence with very serious penalties. Whatever about rational, it is often pragmatic to say that you believe in a god regardless of whether you actually do.
Surprisingly I was bullied over it in the the greater Dublin area up until 2012. One particular event of note had a 6th class religion teacher convince the class I was evil because I was the only one who supported abortion in 2012.0 -
Ricky Gervais said something interesting which applies here.
If all the religious and science text books were destroyed in a human mass extinction event and humans only recovered 1000 years into the future, the future society would have science textbooks that mirror ours. They may not rediscover the same scientific principles but it would be there.
Meanwhile the religious textbooks (assuming they have any) will have different Gods. There won't be Jesus, Yahweh, Buddha, Muhammad etc.. these were all stories based on people living in a certain time.0 -
mr_fegelien wrote: »Ricky Gervais said something interesting which applies here.
If all the religious and science text books were destroyed in a human mass extinction event and humans only recovered 1000 years into the future, the future society would have science textbooks that mirror ours. They may not rediscover the same scientific principles but it would be there.
Meanwhile the religious textbooks (assuming they have any) will have different Gods. There won't be Jesus, Yahweh, Buddha, Muhammad etc.. these were all stories based on people living in a certain time.
Just as atomic particles might not be called electrons, positrons and neutrons, but by entirely different names, and yet might still be understood in ways very simllar to the ways we understand electrons, positrons and neutrons.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »Which, if true, suggests that while any particular religion is extraordinary, religion in general is entirely ordinary.
No it suggests religion is merely a fad and that it clearly proves that those who believed in Zeus were either right or wrong, that those who believed in Odin were either right or wrong or those who believe in whoever the modern lads are are either right or wrong.
Seems a shame to waste your life believing in something that no long exists, or currently doesn’t exist - and if you think it does, will no longer exists in future when something new and exciting comes along.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »If it were self-evident, you wouldn't be reduced to "refuting" it by claiming "It's self-evident!" and then immediately switching to a critique of several entirely different claims.
Have another go?
It’s self-evident
-Ends0 -
No it suggests religion is merely a fad . . .
It suggests the exact opposite of that.
C'mon, you're letting the side down! You're supposed to be the defender of reason here!. . . and that it clearly proves that those who believed in Zeus were either right or wrong, that those who believed in Odin were either right or wrong or those who believe in whoever the modern lads are are either right or wrong.Seems a shame to waste your life believing in something that no long exists, or currently doesn’t exist - and if you think it does, will no longer exists in future when something new and exciting comes along.
That's a profoundly anti-scientific attitude, but you probably know that already. Which is why I', pretty sure I'm misunderstanding you here. Can you have another go?0 -
-
Peregrinus wrote: »I dunno. The monotheistic concept of a unique god who is the creator of all things that exist (other than himself) and who is not a part of the created universe emerged about two-and-a-half thousand years ago and is still going strong. This particular god has outlived many gods who emerged after him and who disappeared long ago. It looks like a fairly durable concept to me
But the "monotheistic concept of a unique god who is the creator of all things that exist (other than himself) and who is not a part of the created universe" is not a particular god, though, is it? It is an extremely brief and general concept that is so nebulous that even though nearly 2 1/2 billion people all self-label as following the same god, we are incapable of saying anything about their beliefs of that god beyond the 25 words you used. And even then, many of them don't even believe in that. Saying that concept is durable is like saying that air is durable because it doesn't break when you punch it.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »Like I say, you're supposed to be defending reason here.
If you can't mount a rational defence of your position, you might be better off saying nothing. Just sayin'.
If we are going to pretend that we are defending reason here, then maybe the onus is on antiskeptic to explain how the claim for the existence of god is ordinary first?0 -
Advertisement
-
Mark Hamill wrote: »But the "monotheistic concept of a unique god who is the creator of all things that exist (other than himself) and who is not a part of the created universe" is not a particular god, though, is it? It is an extremely brief and general concept that is so nebulous that even though nearly 2 1/2 billion people all self-label as following the same god, we are incapable of saying anything about their beliefs of that god beyond the 25 words you used. And even then, many of them don't even believe in that. Saying that concept is durable is like saying that air is durable because it doesn't break when you punch it.0
-
Peregrinus wrote: »Yeah. But they might be similar ideas about God. God might not be called e.g. Yahweh, but there might still be a conception of an all-knowing, all-powerful, etc. god going by a different name.
Just as atomic particles might not be called electrons, positrons and neutrons, but by entirely different names, and yet might still be understood in ways very simllar to the ways we understand electrons, positrons and neutrons.
Atomic particles are inanimate objects. Their name comes from us. However the the results of any tests done in the future would be the same as the same tests done now (or in the past), so the facts derived about them would be the same.
God, if one exists, is not inanimate. God names himself in the bible as several things, like elohim and yahweh etc. If the same god exists in the future, then the same names should appear. If they don't (and I'm betting they wouldn't) then that is because we created the names.0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »If we are going to pretend that we are defending reason here, then maybe the onus is on antiskeptic to explain how the claim for the existence of god is ordinary first?
So, the only claim advanced about this on either side is that belief in god is extraordinary and, despite request, the reasoning offered in support this claim so far is precisely nil, though the claim is repeated. Apparently we are supposed to take it on faith. Which is notable, in a thread which is supposed to be about the rationality of belief. Can you criticise the rationality of other people's beliefs if you can't or won't give a rational account of your own beliefs?0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »It absolutely is a "particular god". This concept requires that there be only one god, that he be the creator of the universe, and that there be no other gods. It doesn't require him to have any particular name, but so what? If I believe in this god and call him Joe, and you believe in this god and call him Bill, we'lll both agree that we believe in the same god; we just refer to him by different names. And I might believe that you are wrong to call him Bill or you might believe that I am wrong to call him Joe, or we might both believe that his name is unimportant. But none of that will change the fact that we believe in the same god; a statement we couldn't make if the concept were not a particular concept of god.
But we don't believe in this particular god. Your Joe and my Bill have inherently non-compatible concepts inherently attached to them. E.g. your Joe says pork is a sin, my Bill says pork isn't. Multiply that by every religious rule and how even you yourself have argued that multiple people self-labeling as the same religion doesn't mean you can say anything about what they should or shouldn't believe in.
There is no "particular god". Many many people have died in agreements over that fact (and in disagreement over whose particular god is the real or best one).
I'd wager that once you separate out the big contradictions, not even 10% of all christians could charitably be said to believe in the same particular god.0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »Atomic particles are inanimate objects. Their name comes from us. However the the results of any tests done in the future would be the same as the same tests done now (or in the past), so the facts derived about them would be the same.
Assuming we rediscover the scientific method, we can reasonably expect to learn things which are as reliably true about the natural world as the things we learnt before the Great Forgetting. But, while there would likely be a degee of overlap, they wouldn't necessarily be the same things. We might head off in different directions of enquiry.Mark Hamill wrote: »God, if one exists, is not inanimate. God names himself in the bible as several things, like elohim and yahweh etc. If the same god exists in the future, then the same names should appear. If they don't (and I'm betting they wouldn't) then that is because we created the names.0 -
No it suggests religion is merely a fad and that it clearly proves that those who believed in Zeus were either right or wrong, that those who believed in Odin were either right or wrong or those who believe in whoever the modern lads are are either right or wrong.
I hardly think you can refer to something that has been widespread through most of humanities existence 'a fad'. Quite the opposite.0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »But we don't believe in this particular god. Your Joe and my Bill have inherently non-compatible concepts inherently attached to them. E.g. your Joe says pork is a sin, my Bill says pork isn't. Multiply that by every religious rule and how even you yourself have argued that multiple people self-labeling as the same religion doesn't mean you can say anything about what they should or shouldn't believe in.
There is no "particular god". Many many people have died in agreements over that fact (and in disagreement over whose particular god is the real or best one).
I'd wager that once you separate out the big contradictions, not even 10% of all christians could charitably be said to believe in the same particular god.
This is true, but so what? You and I might have different beliefs about (say) Michael D. Higgins, but this does not mean that we believe in different Michael D. Higginses or make the objective existence of Michael D. Higgins any less likely.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »Antiskeptic was responding to Mr Fegelein's characterisation, in post #1 in this thread, of belief in God an as "extraordinary claim". He doesn't make any counterclaim that belief in God is ordinary; he just asks why it's extraordinary. Mr Fegelein doesn't respond, but Karlitobob does; he says that "it's self-evident" that belief in God is an extraordinary claim, and he has since repeated that but refused to elaborate on it.
So, the only claim advanced about this on either side is that belief in god is extraordinary and, despite request, the reasoning offered in support this claim so far is precisely nil, though the claim is repeated. Apparently we are supposed to take it on faith. Which is notable, in a thread which is supposed to be about the rationality of belief. Can you criticise the rationality of other people's beliefs if you can't or won't give a rational account of your own beliefs?
So questioning it doesn't count as a contradiction? Sure, fine, whatever. To at least move the discussion along:
If the existence of god is not extraordinary, then it is ordinary. Which would make "a unique god who is the creator of all things that exist (other than himself) and who is not a part of the created universe" ordinary. That looks like a contradiction to me. If god is unique, then he is not common. If he is not part of the universe then he is not normal. If he created the universe then he is special.
Like, this is so obvious as to be self-evident, wouldn't you say?0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »All you're saying is that people might have different beliefs about the same god.
No, I'm quite clearly saying that people are believing in different gods.Peregrinus wrote: »You and I might have different beliefs about (say) Michael D. Higgins, but this does not mean that we believe in different Michael D. Higginses
Except it does. It also means that, at most, only one of us can be believing in the real Micheal D Higgins. However that is a separate issue to the tangent I'm discussing about belief in the same particular god.0 -
Advertisement
-
Mark Hamill wrote: »So questioning it doesn't count as a contradiction? Sure, fine, whatever. To at least move the discussion along:
If the existence of god is not extraordinary, then it is ordinary. Which would make "a unique god who is the creator of all things that exist (other than himself) and who is not a part of the created universe" ordinary. That looks like a contradiction to me. If god is unique, then he is not common. If he is not part of the universe then he is not normal. If he created the universe then he is special.
Like, this is so obvious as to be self-evident, wouldn't you say?
Think about it; if god exists, then his existence is certainly ordinary - as in, it's part of the order of things. And if he doesn't exist, then the question whether
his existence is ordinary or extraordinary is literally a meaningless question.
So, no: the issue here is whether belief in god is an extraordinary belief, or to assert that god exists is an extraordinary assertion. It's certainly not extraordinary in the colloquial sense; it's widespread across all cultures that we know of, and at all time that we know of. It's about as ordinary as a belief or assertion can be. So we're obviously looking at some other sense of "extraordinary". And I think the onus is on those who wish to advance this claim (Mr Fegelein, who first made the claim in this thread, clearly doesn't want to) is to start by eplaining what the claim means. When we describe a belief or assertion as "extraordinary", what exactly do we mean?0
Advertisement