Author Topic: Probabilities of God's existence debate  (Read 44775 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6505
  • Darwins +849/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #696 on: March 29, 2014, 02:48:07 PM »
Lukvance, you are happy to count every possible believer in any kind of god when it suits your purpose. Yes, 80% of the population of the world believes in some sort of god. (Buddhists don't have a god per se, but some do pray to Buddha as if he was a god.)

But do you really intend to include polytheistic Santeros and Hindus, or Sikhs and Muslims, as if what they believe does not matter as long as they are not atheists? If you are a Catholic, you must think that the Catholic faith is correct and the others are wrong. Or else, you could switch to the worship of Shango tomorrow and it should not matter. Do you seriously accept that Mormonism and Scientology are just as likely to be true as your own faith?[1]

You sound like the student group at my college who objected to one of the religion professors being an atheist. How could that be? they asked indignantly. It would be like having a math teacher who did not believe in numbers, or a English teacher who did not believe in Shakespeare. Or a swim coach who did not believe in water. The students had no problem with the quality of the professor's teaching, just that he was personally an unbeliever in religion and gods.

I pointed out to them that they (mainly from the Protestant Christian student group) did not seem to mind that one of the religion professors was a Buddhist (and former monk)  and another was a Catholic nun. They probably would not have objected to a religion course being taught by a Muslim professor. So it was only important that the religion professor believed in some kind of religion, not that it was a particular religion. If the professor was a Scientologist, Mormon or Vodun practictioner, no biggie, just believe in something, right?

What they were actually saying was that an English professor should be British because you cannot possibly go to school, study English and learn what you need to know. A math professor should be the offspring of two math professors. And every professor of Asian history or art should be Asian.[2]Shouldn't the qualification for religion professor be knowledgeable enough through research and study, to be able to teach about religion? Can't they do that without believing in or practicing a religion themselves?

You cannot have it both ways. Either anything goes and you have to include Hindus, Wiccans, Satanists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientologists, dope-smoking Rastafarians, people in Haiti sacrificing goats, and Appalachian snake handlers in order to make up your count of "most people believe in god".

Or you have to admit that only a small fraction of all the people who say they believe in god (like, maybe only Catholic Christians) have gotten it right. Then you only have a billion or so of the 7 billion people on the planet.

Which is it?  :?
 1. I do accept that. You are all equally wrong since you all believe in stuff clearly made up by human beings. ;)
 2. One of the best English professors I know is from China. He is more fluent in English than I am.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1931
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #697 on: March 29, 2014, 03:06:49 PM »
Sorry, I don't think about what will the "quote comment" look like. I only arrange the text so the preview is easy to read and understand. I don't believe I misquote someone there. I believe you have an habit of reading the comment inside your reply box instead of on the forum. I on the other hand, read the post then copy paste the quote I want to respond to in my reply.
I will try and make it more readable for you.

[...] and you go out and find a few folks that get sunburned without the sun and think that's a wonderful response.
I guess it was hard to read the context since my quoting skills are the way they are. I was answering to you saying that "All of that can be imagined. No actual god is required." By changing God for Sun. (no actual sun is required to have a sunburn) In that way proving that God is as real as the Sun. Is that clearer for you now? Do you disagree? Why?

Quote
You didn't mention the people being converted to those religions
Did you read the context I was using the number 2,501,396? the discussion then change to Global (all new people on earth, instead of just converted) ... so I adapted.

Quote
And I have no idea what you mean by "What I meant by the original question was that you can disobey some law that makes your sun real and still be real".
What I mean is that if you tell that the sun is real because it can burn you. Then I prove that he can't. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The same way If I tell you that God is real because I can feel his power...You understand better?

And now to my question without answers :
So many things in your life don't need more hard evidence to be real. Don't you know how the sun move around the world because someone told you so? Did you have to go to space to make sure that it was real? Did you took a piece of the sun to make sure that it was indeed made of the atom he told you it was made of?
How do you know where my emptiness comes from? Do I have to feel the same way you do to be real?
Both are feelings you cannot deny being affected nor can you deny my feeling. It's like saying my feeling does not exist and your state "being affected" does. Me having a feeling is not me being affected?
You're worth more than my time

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 521
  • Darwins +79/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #698 on: March 29, 2014, 03:13:18 PM »
Hello Astreja and Ataraxia, thank you for your imput.

The Appeal to Popularity is what you (Atheists) used to "prove" me wrong.

No, the point of highlighting the use of a fallacy is not to prove you wrong, it is to show that what you are doing doesn't prove you right.

Quote
Like jdawg70 said, talking about the sun : "I feel heat from it, and see light from it."
I do feel the effect of God in my life. So he is real.

Things don't have to be "real" in order to feel an effect from them. I feel things when reading fiction or watching a film. Don't you?

Also, there are people out there who will claim something is real which contradicts what you claim is real. You can't both be right, so how do we verify which one of you is?
 
Quote
The concept of God is real, sure enough.
God itself is real, sure enough. I'm confident that he's real. His existence predicts a few manifestation of reality - for example people being changed by Him. That I feel him and talk to Him and listen to him (sometime). The definition of God implies manifestations in the rest of reality if it were to actually exist.

Now you're on to the argument from ignorance fallacy. Again, I can point to someone who is sure and confident god isn't real. What now? That's the thing with personal experience - it shows everyone else jack shit.

Quote
Plus I love the fact that you took the Sun as an example because of the Miracle of the SunWiki

Is this for real? Are you bringing this up as if it is something that actually happened?

Quote
I'm eager to read your answers : Astreja, screwtape, Foxy Freedom and Ataraxia. What do exist? and why?

Regarding "what do exist", I don't understand what you are asking here or what relevance it has to your theism. With regards to asking "why", I see that as question begging.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1931
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #699 on: March 29, 2014, 03:29:01 PM »
But do you really intend to include polytheistic Santeros and Hindus, or Sikhs and Muslims, as if what they believe does not matter as long as they are not atheists?
Yes. Since we are debating the Probabilities of God's existence.

Quote
If you are a Catholic, you must think that the Catholic faith is correct and the others are wrong.
False. I think that other religion are incomplete...not necessarily wrong. Many of my friend are from other religion, they are good and honest people. I just believe they could be happier if they where Catholic.

Quote
[...]If the professor was a Scientologist, Mormon or Vodun practictioner, no biggie, just believe in something, right?
I kind of disagree with the Protestant Christian student group. But I'm also having trouble understanding how someone would be able to correctly teach something he believes is not true. Even if he learned what he need to know. Could you imagine your Asian English teacher never speaks English (because he does not practice nor believe in English)

Quote
You cannot have it both ways. Either anything goes and you have to include Hindus, Wiccans, Satanists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientologists, dope-smoking Rastafarians, people in Haiti sacrificing goats, and Appalachian snake handlers in order to make up your count of "most people believe in god".

Or you have to admit that only a small fraction of all the people who say they believe in god (like, maybe only Catholic Christians) have gotten it right. Then you only have a billion or so of the 7 billion people on the planet.

Which is it?  :?
There is a third way, I tried to explain it earlier. Was it clear enough?
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1931
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #700 on: March 29, 2014, 03:51:52 PM »
Things don't have to be "real" in order to feel an effect from them. I feel things when reading fiction or watching a film. Don't you?
I do feel things when reading fiction or watching a film. And I don't say that the book and the tv are not real. Is that what you are saying?

Quote
Also, there are people out there who will claim something is real which contradicts what you claim is real. You can't both be right, so how do we verify which one of you is?

Could you give me an example please I'm having difficulty comprehending what you mean.
 
Quote
Quote
The concept of God is real, sure enough.
God itself is real, sure enough. I'm confident that he's real. His existence predicts a few manifestation of reality - for example people being changed by Him. That I feel him and talk to Him and listen to him (sometime). The definition of God implies manifestations in the rest of reality if it were to actually exist.
Now you're on to the argument from ignorance fallacy. Again, I can point to someone who is sure and confident god isn't real. What now? That's the thing with personal experience - it shows everyone else jack shit.

It's not my argument it's jdawg70's I just changed the wording, not the idea.

Quote
Is this for real? Are you bringing this [The Miracle of the SunWiki] up as if it is something that actually happened?

Oh yes.

Quote
Regarding "what do exist", I don't understand what you are asking here or what relevance it has to your theism.

We are debating the existence of God. So I want to know what do you define as existent. Do you see the relevance now?
Quote
With regards to asking "why", I see that as question begging.
I see this as question dogging :)
What are you basis to state the existence of something? Particularly the thing you named bye answering my first question.
You're worth more than my time

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 521
  • Darwins +79/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #701 on: March 29, 2014, 04:13:07 PM »
Things don't have to be "real" in order to feel an effect from them. I feel things when reading fiction or watching a film. Don't you?
I do feel things when reading fiction or watching a film. And I don't say that the book and the tv are not real. Is that what you are saying?

No, what is portrayed in the book or film are not real, but they make you feel, therefore just because something makes you feel an effect, doesn't mean it's real.

Quote
Quote
Also, there are people out there who will claim something is real which contradicts what you claim is real. You can't both be right, so how do we verify which one of you is?

Could you give me an example please I'm having difficulty comprehending what you mean.

Ok, a simple hypothetical example - you say god is green, person X says god is red. One of you is at least wrong. How do we go about flasifying this?
 
Quote
Quote
Quote
The concept of God is real, sure enough.
God itself is real, sure enough. I'm confident that he's real. His existence predicts a few manifestation of reality - for example people being changed by Him. That I feel him and talk to Him and listen to him (sometime). The definition of God implies manifestations in the rest of reality if it were to actually exist.
Now you're on to the argument from ignorance fallacy. Again, I can point to someone who is sure and confident god isn't real. What now? That's the thing with personal experience - it shows everyone else jack shit.

It's not my argument it's jdawg70's I just changed the wording, not the idea.

It's the wording that matters. Jdawg was pointing to something for which we can agree exists and can demomstrate to a third party. You're not.

Quote
Quote
Is this for real? Are you bringing this [The Miracle of the SunWiki] up as if it is something that actually happened?

Oh yes.

Yet such an obvious, visual and physically catastrophic phenomena was not recorded by anyone else anywhere on the globe. Strange that.

Quote
We are debating the existence of God. So I want to know what do you define as existent. Do you see the relevance now?

Now I understand the question better, yes. If I ignore going totally solipsistically nuclear, then that which appears to manifest in the one reality that I perceive exists. That which is posited as existing outside of that perceived reality is indistinguishable from that which does not exist.

Quote
Quote
With regards to asking "why", I see that as question begging.
I see this as question dogging :)
What are you basis to state the existence of something? Particularly the thing you named bye answering my first question.

No, you misunderstand. Asking why implies that there is a purpose for things existing. I see no reason to ask this question unless you a priori think there is something making things exist intentionally.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2014, 04:14:56 PM by Ataraxia »
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1931
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #702 on: March 29, 2014, 04:28:23 PM »
[...]what is portrayed in the book or film are not real[...]
Why? What makes you say they are not real?
You see that's why the discussion must start with the definition of what exist with an example of what exist and the reason why you think that example exist. If there is no reason it's existence, then it has no reason to exist :)

Quote
Ok, a simple hypothetical example - you say god is green, person X says god is red. One of you is at least wrong. How do we go about flasifying this?
Catholics found the answer to that. We are both right. God is everything :)

Quote
It's the wording that matters. Jdawg was pointing to something for which we can agree exists and can demomstrate to a third party. You're not.
Oh yes I can (or am...i'm not sure what you meant by i'm not) . It is not because you agree with him and disagree with me that it is not an "argument from ignorance fallacy" as you called it. Or, is it?

You're worth more than my time

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 521
  • Darwins +79/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #703 on: March 29, 2014, 04:52:26 PM »
[...]what is portrayed in the book or film are not real[...]
Why? What makes you say they are not real?
You see that's why the discussion must start with the definition of what exist with an example of what exist and the reason why you think that example exist. If there is no reason it's existence, then it has no reason to exist :)

Erm, we're working with the notion that they are fiction. Please keep up.

Quote
Quote
Ok, a simple hypothetical example - you say god is green, person X says god is red. One of you is at least wrong. How do we go about flasifying this?
Catholics found the answer to that. We are both right. God is everything :)

This does not swerve the falsification test. In fact, it makes it impossible to falsify. You have made god meaningless.

Quote
Quote
It's the wording that matters. Jdawg was pointing to something for which we can agree exists and can demomstrate to a third party. You're not.
Oh yes I can (or am...i'm not sure what you meant by i'm not) . It is not because you agree with him and disagree with me that it is not an "argument from ignorance fallacy" as you called it. Or, is it?

Then you'll have no problem in demonstrating god is everything. And yes, I agree with him that the sun exists. Don't you? I don't agree with you that something (or should that be everything) you call god exists. This has no bearing on your fallacy.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6353
  • Darwins +747/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #704 on: March 29, 2014, 07:00:37 PM »
First of all, thank you for heeding my request about quoting. You did very good in this post, and it will make responding far easier. I appreciate that you weren't stubborn on the subject or anything.

Sorry, I don't think about what will the "quote comment" look like. I only arrange the text so the preview is easy to read and understand. I don't believe I misquote someone there. I believe you have an habit of reading the comment inside your reply box instead of on the forum. I on the other hand, read the post then copy paste the quote I want to respond to in my reply.
I will try and make it more readable for you.

[...] and you go out and find a few folks that get sunburned without the sun and think that's a wonderful response.
I guess it was hard to read the context since my quoting skills are the way they are. I was answering to you saying that "All of that can be imagined. No actual god is required." By changing God for Sun. (no actual sun is required to have a sunburn) In that way proving that God is as real as the Sun. Is that clearer for you now? Do you disagree? Why?

Yes, I disagree. While it may be strangely possible for people to get a sunburn without the sun (I'm guessing something else is going on but I'm no authority so I'll not argue the possibility), I don't quite see how you can refer to the sun as imaginary or your god as real.

Lets make the comparison this way. You and I are alive because of the sun. Were it to blink out, or get weaker, we would be in deep doo-doo. Nothing alive on earth would survive for long. Not only would we lose our heat, but also our photosynthesis, which both makes plants for food and oxygen for breathing. And while I'm pretty sure you give your god credit for inventing such a wonderful heat source/energy source/light source, there are alternative explanations for the existence of the sun that can be verified by observation. Something your god, if real, apparently dislikes.

Quote
Quote
You didn't mention the people being converted to those religions
Did you read the context I was using the number 2,501,396? the discussion then change to Global (all new people on earth, instead of just converted) ... so I adapted.

The context you used was incomplete, and I had to go searching to find out how significant your 2.5 million number was. You were impressed. I wasn't. I told you why.

Quote
Quote
And I have no idea what you mean by "What I meant by the original question was that you can disobey some law that makes your sun real and still be real".
What I mean is that if you tell that the sun is real because it can burn you. Then I prove that he can't. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The same way If I tell you that God is real because I can feel his power...You understand better?

The only real problem there is that we both burn if we stand out in the sun for long enough, but only you feel his power. I could diss the power of the sun all day long but I'd still get burned. On the other hand, I can say god doesn't exist and it has no negative effect on me. Except for the one that, you, as a believer, say I am suffering. And I disagree.

Quote
And now to my question without answers :
So many things in your life don't need more hard evidence to be real. Don't you know how the sun move around the world because someone told you so? Did you have to go to space to make sure that it was real? Did you took a piece of the sun to make sure that it was indeed made of the atom he told you it was made of?
How do you know where my emptiness comes from? Do I have to feel the same way you do to be real?
Both are feelings you cannot deny being affected nor can you deny my feeling. It's like saying my feeling does not exist and your state "being affected" does. Me having a feeling is not me being affected?

First of all, I do hope you aren't one of that too large a group that thinks the sun moves around the earth. It doesn't. We move around it. But no, I didn't have to go into space to be sure it was real. There is lots of evidence here, and science can make predictions (not vague prophecies, but very specific predictions) about the sun. Like predicting that when large explosions on the sun are facing our general direction, that we will get more northern lights than when those explosions aren't in our general direction. Or exactly predicting when the sun will come up and go down on any given day, something they can do for centuries into the future. Accurately. And no, I don't personally feel us flying around the sun at 66,000 miles an hour, any more than I feel our planet rotating at a thousand miles an hour, or our solar system moving through the galaxy at 446,000 miles per hour. But we have ways of measuring, which we are sure are accurate because those numbers too can be used to accurately predict our location at any given moment in the future.

Touching the sun to confirm that it is hot would be a futile effort at learning, because I wouldn't survive the process. But we have instruments that can measure, and I have no reason not to trust them, because again, they can help science make even more predictions. And the ability to predict helps confirm the accuracy of gathered information. If a prediction isn't accurate, then something is wrong and we have to try again. When it comes to the sun and heat and orbits and northern lights and stuff, we've got that pretty much down pat.

Your god can't meet any of those criteria. Criteria that are confirmable. Your god is limited to whatever excuses christians are making for him at any given moment. You say he is omnipotent (I assume, most christians say that), yet he doesn't know how to create a world where people such as myself can believe. He makes it look like he doesn't exist and then expects me to weave my way through the various religions and various denominations and the various sects and to find exactly the right one and then accept his existence. Why an omnipotent being would be so picky about such things, especially given how sloppy a job he did in making us in the first place, sort of ruins the story. That he behaves exactly as a made up god, accomplishes as much as a made up god, and has nothing to offer that other made up gods can't do kind of dooms the story.

Yes, you say you feel him. That is about as meaningful to me as a Def Leppard love song (I don't know if such a thing exists, but that was a fun to type). Given as I'm old and don't care about either that kind of music or your claims, which can't be demonstrated, which can't be used to predict, which can't be used to the benefit of anyone but you. This is made more perplexing by the fact that not all christians say that they feel god. They claim to manifest their belief in him in other ways, but they don't all say that they feel him. So these secret responses vary a lot, just like humans vary a lot, and I, as a person who has a degree in sociology and who knows that people and groups vary a lot, am not the least bit impressed by such claims. I expect them. To occur naturally. They are natural variations on the theme of delusion to me. And since you have nothing but feelings to offer, I have no way to either experience or believe what you are saying. Because it is a completely foreign concept to me.

And by the way, if it isn't obvious yet, you can't use your feeling to predict a darn thing, other than perhaps your feelings, which you can't verify without being hooked up to machines anyway.

So you have your emptiness (while I don't) and you have your feelings that I don't experience. How the heck are we going to agree on anything other than the fact that we disagree? You can't actually ask me to conjure up similar feelings or similar emptiness if you can't describe it with any accuracy. On the other hand, I can describe the sun. And a quick google search will give me the sunrise time tomorrow morning for any city in the country. (De Moines, Iowa? 7:00 sharp).

Go to De Moines, prove that the sun rose at 6:55 or 7:05 and I'm in trouble. In the meantime, I'm not.

I don't deny your feelings. But I've had plenty in my life that were inaccurate too. Again, that's normal. Unless you never learn from your mistakes. And that's the wrong approach to life.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1931
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #705 on: March 29, 2014, 10:52:06 PM »
[...]what is portrayed in the book or film are not real[...]
Why? What makes you say they are not real?
You see that's why the discussion must start with the definition of what exist with an example of what exist and the reason why you think that example exist. If there is no reason it's existence, then it has no reason to exist :)
Erm, we're working with the notion that they are fiction. Please keep up.
Only you are. I'm not. I gave already my definition of what is real. And what is portrayed in the book or film are real. If you wish to continue discussing, please answer my questions, (like : What makes you say they are not real?) instead of hinting that I am slow. I may be not as smart as you are but I try my best :(
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1931
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #706 on: March 29, 2014, 11:31:35 PM »
Yes, I disagree. While it may be strangely possible for people to get a sunburn without the sun (I'm guessing something else is going on but I'm no authority so I'll not argue the possibility), I don't quite see how you can refer to the sun as imaginary or your god as real
Well I'm trying my best here. You give me a definition for the sun. I give you the same definition using the same term you used to define the Sun but replacing the sun for God. And you keep telling me that the sun exist and God doesn't. What is the difference?
Sunburn (the physical result used to define the reality of the sun) can be real (people were under the sun) or imaginary (people were not exposed to the sun). 
The changes God made in my life (and others) are real. Hence God is real. (according to your definition of what is real)
You and I would burn under the sun but you may burn before I do it does not make the sun less real.
You and I will see the change in our life made by God. I may feel the change before you do but it doesn't make God less real.
What is the difference?

Every time you say "we" like in "we have ways of measuring", "we are sure are accurate", "we've got that pretty much down pat." You are talking about something someone (or Google) told you was true and that someone were proof enough.
Am I not proof enough? What about the others who agree with me?
I understand that you might want to conduct your own experiment to make sure that that "someone" did indeed told you the truth. Some experiments, you might never be able to reproduce (like picking up an atom of the sun to make sure it's indeed hydrogen) some you might be able to reproduce (going outside and getting a sunburn).
You can conduct experiments to make sure that what I told you was true.

Quote
he [God] doesn't know how to create a world where people such as myself can believe

Is it because he knows that he must do it? Did you ever ask yourself why God gave you your freedom? He could have not give it to you and force you to believe in him but he chose to let you have the choice to believe in him, or not. Why?

Quote
How the heck are we going to agree on anything other than the fact that we disagree? You can't actually ask me to conjure up similar feelings or similar emptiness if you can't describe it with any accuracy. On the other hand, I can describe the sun.

Oh yes I can, like many others did before you and many others will do after you. You cannot describe the sun without asking me to "conjure up similar feelings or similar emptiness". In the same way that 2 trees drawn by 2 people, one on each side of the black board, will never look the same. We all have different ways God changed our lives. But we all agree that it was Him who did it.
You're worth more than my time

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12040
  • Darwins +307/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #707 on: March 29, 2014, 11:36:12 PM »
Quote from: Lukvance
And you keep telling me that the sun exist and God doesn't. What is the difference?

The difference is if you placed two cards in front of a child and asked which one was the sun and which one was "god" the child would pick the card with a yellow circle for the sun, and pick the blank card for "god".

The sun is observable, your god is not. You can point to your scripture but that is others observations of what they feel is "god" and not actually your god.

Get it? Stop being dense.

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1931
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #708 on: March 30, 2014, 12:32:21 AM »
if you placed two cards in front of a child and asked which one was the sun and which one was "god" the child would pick the card with a yellow circle for the sun, and pick the blank card for "god".
Same thing if you ask the kid which one is the sun and which one is the air. Does it mean that the air does not exist? What about love? Does it exist?
I'm trying to be as open minded that I can. Asking question, using the answers to that question to push further on proving the existence of God. I'm sorry if you find that I am dense and you are not.
Oh and Nam, what is real/exist for you? and why do you think it's real/exist?
You're worth more than my time

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2997
  • Darwins +265/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #709 on: March 30, 2014, 12:45:39 AM »
I haven't seen anything for which "God" was a particularly compelling answer.
Does this mean that for something to exist it must be a "particularly compelling answer"?

It would definitely help.  The fact that I can drop objects and observe them falling to the ground is one of the reasons I accept gravity as part of My reality.  I can't say the same for gods:  As yet there's no experiment that I can do to test for Their presence.  At best, I can imagine Them.

Quote
I see love as an action rather than an entity, and because actions can vary in myriad ways there isn't much point in talking about consistency there.  If it could be demonstrated that "love" was an actual being, then I would expect it to act in a predictable manner.

So? does love exist? (it's a yes or no question) If so, could you maybe rethink your answer to "What do exist? and why?"

Yes, I think that love exists.  I think that it's an epiphenomenon in certain genetic lines, including humans and many other mammals.  It appears to require a certain level of sentience and self-awareness, plus the ability to distinguish between oneself and someone else.  I do not think that it is supernatural.

Why does it exist?  No particular reason; it's an evolved neurological variant that continues because of its beneficial effects.  When it emerges it leads to successful community-building, altruistic behaviours and empathy, which in turn make it more likely that a group will survive over the long term.  (And here we are, a bunch of hairless apes with fragile claws, blunt teeth and questionable running abilities, making plans to colonize Mars ...)
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6353
  • Darwins +747/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #710 on: March 30, 2014, 01:06:26 AM »
Yes, I disagree. While it may be strangely possible for people to get a sunburn without the sun (I'm guessing something else is going on but I'm no authority so I'll not argue the possibility), I don't quite see how you can refer to the sun as imaginary or your god as real
Well I'm trying my best here. You give me a definition for the sun. I give you the same definition using the same term you used to define the Sun but replacing the sun for God. And you keep telling me that the sun exist and God doesn't. What is the difference?

Were I a bad guy (and I most certainly am not, but I've seen 'em in movies), I could strip you to your underwear, stake you to the desert floor in Arizona in August, and watch you cook away until you were dead. It would probably take a couple of days, but I could arrange it for you not to survive, using only the sun as my weapon.

There is nothing you could do to me that would cause your god to have any effect, other than arrange for me to be stoned to death. And that would be people doing it, not a natural phenomenon.

Reality hurts more than a god. That's how I know.

Quote
Sunburn (the physical result used to define the reality of the sun) can be real (people were under the sun) or imaginary (people were not exposed to the sun). 
The changes God made in my life (and others) are real. Hence God is real. (according to your definition of what is real)

No, you're allowed to say what you think is real, but you're not allowed to redefine what I think is real. There is a huge difference between the sun or any other physical reality and your god. I know you want to compare the two directly, but you have to cheat a lot to do that.

Quote
You and I would burn under the sun but you may burn before I do it does not make the sun less real.
You and I will see the change in our life made by God. I may feel the change before you do but it doesn't make God less real.
What is the difference?

A bit over half a century ago I became an atheist. I didn't even know that there was a word for it, but I became one anyway. I saw no change in my life when I stopped thinking that there was a god. Why is that. If he is real and I was a kid who accepted that there was a god because adults told me there was, and I felt nothing, why should I think that you are describing your experience accurately?

If your god wanted me, he had his chance. He could have given me the same sort of feeling you say you experience. I didn't notice anything. Others have told me that they knew there was a god when they were young. Why didn't I notice him if he is real? Did I get special non-treatment?

Quote
Every time you say "we" like in "we have ways of measuring", "we are sure are accurate", "we've got that pretty much down pat." You are talking about something someone (or Google) told you was true and that someone were proof enough.
Am I not proof enough? What about the others who agree with me?

I understand that you might want to conduct your own experiment to make sure that that "someone" did indeed told you the truth. Some experiments, you might never be able to reproduce (like picking up an atom of the sun to make sure it's indeed hydrogen) some you might be able to reproduce (going outside and getting a sunburn).
You can conduct experiments to make sure that what I told you was true.

No, sorry to say, you are not proof enough. The collective "we" I use refers to the people who have gone to the trouble of searching and discovering and writing things down and concluding through trial and error what is real and what is not. They have found and disseminated accumulative knowledge that is useful on the big and small scale. And what they told me matches what I call reality.  That gives them a huge advantage over religion, with its fantastic tales. Tales too fantastic to be believable (over half a million people lost in a desert for 40 years), too fantastic to be useful (if you want stripped goats, mate the parents in front of striped sticks), and also, too mundane to be useful (A begat B, and B begat C. and C begat D. and that's important stuff, but notice how careful god was not to mention germ theory.)

So while I don't need direct proof when claims are made, so long as they are consistent with my reality and not immediately dismissed by Snopes.com, the complete and total lack of physical proof of any god or gods has left an impression on me. When I used to step on my kids lego in the middle of the night, I didn't once think that the feeling that gave me was god telling me I should turn on the lights. When building houses and hitting my thumb with a hammer, it never occurred to me that I was feeling the lord coming down on me hard. I've stood atop high mountains and looked around at all the beauty below without ever stopping to give credit to your god, who you probably claim is the guy who made those mountains so darned steep.

Anyway, I have no idea what you're feeling, and if I don't know that, how can you expect me to automatically consider your claim to be as valid as the one that says if I drive over the speed limit, I might get a ticket. Because that one I've done, and I accept it as accurate. And since the claims that I've verified (like "don't volunteer for anything when you're in the military") are consistent with other claims that I haven't bothered verifying (Robbing banks will get you tossed in jail).

Reality affects me directly. Yes, I understand that the human mind and its sensory capabilities are limited, and distorting, and far from perfect, but I've used them to guide my hands and feet while climbing thousand foot cliffs and driving a car with my little son in it for thousands of miles without incident. Which means we humans can make allowances for our biological shortcomings, and many of us manage to survive on this planet despite its many dangers. And that works whether we believe in a god or not.

Your "feelings" mean nothing to me. That doesn't mean that I don't care about your emotional state. What it does mean is that you are not defining or describing those feelings with any effectiveness whatsoever. In fact, you are redefining how general the term "generic" can be with your feeble efforts. And in fact I doubt that you could describe them accurately to anyone, believer or not, because we humans are seldom able to do that, unless we are competent poets. And even then, they have to use allegory and simile and dozens of other word tricks to get their point across, no matter how skilled they are.

I don't have to point to my sunburned arm and say "Oh, forsooth, it doeseth look as if sandpaper covered mice have been running around on my mighty forearms!" I just say "Ouch, I got sunburned" and most everyone knows exactly what I mean. You don't have any way of getting the details of your feelings across. That ain't my fault. If it was such a big deal, your christian forefathers should have come up with words and processes to make that as easy as saying ouch. Why didn't they? Because they didn't know how to describe their feelings either. Ethereal stuff is like that. Whether it is true or not.

Now you just claimed that there are experiments that can be done to confirm that what you are saying is true. You need to cough a few of those up. Give us specifics. Let us do whatever we have to do to get those feelings. If you can do it with any effectiveness, I'll probably be too busy gasping in disbelief to follow up on it, but perhaps others around here will be more able to control their reactions and try recreating the experiments you are about to suggest. We're all ears. Though you're right, I can't prove that.


Quote
Quote
he [God] doesn't know how to create a world where people such as myself can believe

Is it because he knows that he must do it? Did you ever ask yourself why God gave you your freedom? He could have not give it to you and force you to believe in him but he chose to let you have the choice to believe in him, or not. Why?

God didn't give me freedom. His non-existence is somewhat limiting. But you used the word "must". You are telling me that your omnipotent god "must" do something. Why is that? And why would your god play with our feelings they way he does if he is real? Why has he allowed me to live in relative peace throughout my life while chrisitans I've known have dropped like flies. Cancer, murder, car wrecks, stillborn babies, physical abuse, squished by falling boulders; why has he been offing them by the dozens during my lifetime, but not bothering to harm a hair on my head (well, what's left of the hair on my head?) If I became a christian, would I immediately die in an earthquake or otherwise start having bad days? So not only are you in trouble trying to describe your feelings, but you'd have a heck of a time explaining what the advantages would be even if I had feeling to respond to.

Quote
Quote
How the heck are we going to agree on anything other than the fact that we disagree? You can't actually ask me to conjure up similar feelings or similar emptiness if you can't describe it with any accuracy. On the other hand, I can describe the sun.

Oh yes I can, like many others did before you and many others will do after you. You cannot describe the sun without asking me to "conjure up similar feelings or similar emptiness". In the same way that 2 trees drawn by 2 people, one on each side of the black board, will never look the same. We all have different ways God changed our lives. But we all agree that it was Him who did it.

Were I the aforementioned bad guy, I wouldn't have to ask you to conjure up anything. By staking you to the desert floor, you would get my point with painful precision. The words we use to describe reality aren't necessary. Reality is there whether we define it or not. I contend that your god is not there, no matter how well you define him. And thus far, nobody has done so to my satisfaction.

If I were going to make up a religion, I would have to have an invisible god or gods, because they wouldn't be real. And I would have to come up with a variety of excuses to explain why my god couldn't be seen. And I would have to say I can feel or hear or otherwise connect with him because I'm special, and I would have to spend my time trying to convince others to start feeling him.

And were I adequately incentivized, I could do it.

Why does your god, supposedly real, have to use the same processes as fake gods? Why does your god have to hide? Now I know you have a a series of pat answers for this, and I don't really need to hear them. But I'm not asking for my sake. I'm asking for yours.

Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12040
  • Darwins +307/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #711 on: March 30, 2014, 01:55:17 AM »
if you placed two cards in front of a child and asked which one was the sun and which one was "god" the child would pick the card with a yellow circle for the sun, and pick the blank card for "god".
Same thing if you ask the kid which one is the sun and which one is the air. Does it mean that the air does not exist? What about love? Does it exist?
I'm trying to be as open minded that I can. Asking question, using the answers to that question to push further on proving the existence of God. I'm sorry if you find that I am dense and you are not.
Oh and Nam, what is real/exist for you? and why do you think it's real/exist?

Didn't I tell you to stop being dense? "Air" is a mixture of oxygen and nitrogen, two things that can be (and has been) observed. "Love", which has no solid form, can also be observed BY DEFINITION. Your god cannot be.

You say: look at the trees around you[1], where do you think they came from? Answer: seeds, the ground, all of which are observable. Emotions (in reference to love) is observable--your god is not. Saying it doesn't make it true. I can see trees, they have roots in the ground, I can see the sun, I can feel it on my skin, I can see the purple dots on my eyes when I look at it. Your god does none of those things because it's a product of your mental depravity--meaning: you see it because you say you see it. You feel it because you say you feel it. What you say means nothing. What you feel means nothing.

You're not being open-minded. You're being closed-minded and saying you're being open-minded. Your attempting to twist the analogy to fit your perception.

You can't prove the existence of your god because you believe in your god by faith and faith is the absence of proof--look it up.

-Nam
 1. I've gotten this reply so many times it's laughable
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1931
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #712 on: March 30, 2014, 04:32:29 AM »
It's really hard to picture a world without a Sun because we lived with him our whole life. I'd like to propose to move the discussion on something less tangible. Love, does it exist? If so, how is existence different than God's?

There is nothing you could do to me that would cause your god to have any effect, other than arrange for me to be stoned to death. And that would be people doing it, not a natural phenomenon.
Reality hurts more than a god. That's how I know.
I understand that the sun can be used to do bad things to me. But God won't. It's part of his definition (the "bestest")
I guess there might be things I could do to you that would improve your life (the only effect I know God have). I could give you money. Help your child in a time of need. Help you get to your goal.

There is something paramount about God and his omnipotence/omniscience, he chose to let us live freely, gave us the ability to choose him. I'm telling you that knowing that if you don't believe he exist you can't say things like "he [God] doesn't know how to create a world where people such as myself can believe" this phrase presuppose the existence of God (and subsequently his desire to leave you free)

Quote
you're not allowed to redefine what I think is real
I know! And I don't. That's why I picked your definition of reality and applied it to God.

Quote
I saw no change in my life when I stopped thinking that there was a god. Why is that. If he is real and I was a kid who accepted that there was a god because adults told me there was, and I felt nothing, why should I think that you are describing your experience accurately?
The change I'm talking about is one I experienced not when I denied the existence of God but when I accepted him in my life. I could describe the experience but it will be my tree (by reference of the 2 trees drawn by 2 people), not yours.
Here is how I describe it : "I was happy, more than ever in my life before. My happiness was so high that, in a scale, the precedent happiest moment in my life (thus far) was dwarfed."

Quote
No, sorry to say, you are not proof enough. The collective "we" I use refers to the people who have gone to the trouble of searching and discovering and writing things down and concluding through trial and error what is real and what is not. They have found and disseminated accumulative knowledge that is useful on the big and small scale. And what they told me matches what I call reality.

I could say the same thing about God (research, writings, concluding...etc). And what they told me matches what I call reality. It doesn't make him more real! Or does it?

Quote
I just say "Ouch, I got sunburned" and most everyone knows exactly what I mean
Do you mean that because most people would know what you mean then the sun must exist? If so, I could say "I've been blessed by God" and most everyone knows exactly what I mean. Does it mean that God exist?

Quote
If I became a christian, would I immediately die in an earthquake or otherwise start having bad days?
I hope not! But, unfortunately I cannot predict the future. So you'll have to take a leap...of faith haha.

Quote
Why does your god, supposedly real, have to use the same processes as fake gods? Why does your god have to hide?
For me, it's the other way arround. Fake gods will try to use the same process than real God...and ultimately fail.
My God doesn't have to hide. You can see his fruits all around you.
And If you mean why doesn't he shows his face? Then we believe that's because we would not have any choices left, we will not be free. It a little bit like when you wait for your kid to come home and he doesn't then you show your face to the party...wouldn't it be better if you didn't have to show up for him to come home?

You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1931
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #713 on: March 30, 2014, 04:46:49 AM »
Didn't I tell you to stop being dense?
Yes master, sorry, what should I do? Stop asking hard to answer questions? Leave the forum? Tell you that you are right? But I would be lying. :( How can I please you? What is the degree of density you want me to have? None? How can I know what to challenge and what to not challenge?

Quote
"Love", which has no solid form, can also be observed BY DEFINITION. Your god cannot be.
Oh! How can you observe Love by definition and not observe God by definition?

Quote
Emotions (in reference to love) is observable--your god is not. Saying it doesn't make it true.
Is it because I am saying it and not you? You say love is observable without example. Can I say that God is observable the same way?
You're worth more than my time

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1334
  • Darwins +96/-11
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #714 on: March 30, 2014, 05:12:28 AM »

Lukvance,

You are still repeating the mistake I mentioned earlier.

You are confusing a concept with reality. It is true that people are changed by concepts but that does not make the concept real.

Reality changes things without needing a concept for it. The sun kills animals and bacteria in the desert whether they have a concept of the sun or not. Wind blowing a goat off a cliff will kill the goat whether the goat has a concept of wind and gravity or not. An asteroid killed the dinosaurs whether they had a concept of asteroids and the rest of the universe or not.

Let's see any god acting independently of its concept (that is independently of any belief in it) by moving the stars in the sky to read in big letters

I am here
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6353
  • Darwins +747/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #715 on: March 30, 2014, 10:01:00 AM »
Lukvance

I don't have the time for a detailed reply (I say as the entire forum breathes a sign of relief) because I have to work. Plus, I have to schedule my stoning tomorrow, because I'll be pissing off a whole bunch of happy christians today.

But I will say this. Happiness does not measure reality. You're ecstatic because you think god is in your life. Somewhere there is a bank robber sitting in his hideout, counting his stolen cash, feeling just as happy. Right now there are men sitting in a chair, drinking a beer, delighted that they just beat the crap out of their wife/girlfriend, or molested their daughter. There are liars everywhere happy that they got away with yet another fib. Happiness is a way for a person to measure their ecstasy level. It measures nothing else.

And happiness as a goal sucks. Big time. Because if we were all happy 24/7, nobody would ever clean the toilet.

And love is the same thing. It measures yet another feeling. It doesn't guarantee accuracy or usefulness. In fact love often ignores reality. The feeling can be so strong that it causes people to do highly irrational things . And it is often only a measure of personal desire rather than more mundane realities that would be useful at the moment.

Both are feelings.  Subject to personal standards and personal interpretation. There have been/are people who love killing other people. Does that further your cause? There are people who love money so much they'll do many a wrong thing to get it. Does that make stealing good?

You're talking feelings. For which there is no objective standard. And holding them up as accurate measurements for your claims. You can't define those feelings accurately, you can't put a realistic number on them, you can't demonstrate your happiness (other than by dancing) and you can't say with any certainty that your feelings of love and/or happiness are definitely superior to my feelings of love/happiness. That's why we invented the word "subjective".

I am a happy person. By my measure. There are people and situations and things and animals that I love. Adding a god to the mix would not add anything to my life. Except depression for lying to myself about his existence, and sadness that I'd become a sucker.

I'm also happy, by the way, that I don't have to make up stories to help me face my inevitable death. I fully accept that the end is the end, and while I'm pretty sure I won't be dancing a jig the day I die, I also won't be cowering in fear, hoping that I was good enough for the god who I sure hope loves me. Wondering if I met his standards/requirements. I won't have to quiver with doubts (and believe me, as a hospice volunteer, I've seen this.) I get to die without lying to myself first. I love that. It makes me so happy.

I'm better off this way for a lot of reasons. For instance, it helps me keep my stoning tomorrow in perspective.

And since I'll be busy til late this afternoon, you've got all day to find a way to rephrase "I told you this unmeasurable (unlike the sun) thing is true, so it must be. Why don't you believe me?" into something a bit more effective and a bit less naïve sounding. Good luck with that.

And by the way, if love and happiness were automatically accurate measures of reality, all we'd have to do is inject endorphins into our bodies all day long and life would be perfect. But I don't do drugs.


Edit: Added clarification in next to last paragraph
« Last Edit: March 30, 2014, 10:28:30 AM by ParkingPlaces »
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1931
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #716 on: March 30, 2014, 12:25:42 PM »
I don't have the time for a detailed reply (I say as the entire forum breathes a sign of relief) because I have to work. Plus, I have to schedule my stoning tomorrow, because I'll be pissing off a whole bunch of happy christians today.
I understand. That's ok I've read you and don't feel pissed at all. I hope I will be able to calm down the others before they start throwing insults (or rocks) at you :)

You are right doing bad thing can bring happiness to people. Can we agree that there are 2 axes for happiness, intensity and time?
Happiness might not measure reality, but does it change it? Does It have an influence on it? Modify the way you see what exist and what does not?

Quote
And happiness as a goal sucks. Big time. Because if we were all happy 24/7, nobody would ever clean the toilet.
Still, it's our goal, every human being wants to be happy.

Quote
The feeling can be so strong that it causes people to do highly irrational things . [...] Both are feelings.  Subject to personal standards and personal interpretation. There have been/are people who love killing other people. Does that further your cause?

Yes it further our cause (not just mine since you are looking for the grey area too aren't you?) Because they should not be influenced by something that does not exist. I has been said "The definition of [something] implies manifestations in the rest of reality if it were to actually exist."
Quote
[...] Does that make stealing good?
If You bring up the good or bad debate in the exist or doesn't exist debate and we have a nuclear discussion :)

I don't have (or maybe get/understand) your answer to : "why do you think Love exist?" It doesn't fulfill any requirement you gave us this far.

Quote
And since I'll be busy til late this afternoon, you've got all day to find a way to rephrase "I told you this unmeasurable (unlike the sun) thing is true, so it must be. Why don't you believe me?" into something a bit more effective and a bit less naïve sounding. Good luck with that.

I would love to change it for "I told you this unmeasurable thing is true, it correspond to every qualities (of "true") you bring up but your own choice. Why don't you choose it to be true?"
To help me understand that phrase let me change true/exist for blue. "I told you this thing is blue, it correspond to every qualities of the color blue you bring up (beside your own choice). Why don't you choose it to be blue?"
You're worth more than my time

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12040
  • Darwins +307/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #717 on: March 30, 2014, 12:42:15 PM »


Love can be observed from one person to another, you can't observe a person loving something that isn't there, and if they could they'd put them in a mental facility because it isn't there--by your own analogy of "air": that which is invisible to the eye. Love can be observed by others watching others: all you have are words and for many that may be enough but words are not evidence of anything. You may feel emotions from these words, and people may observe those emotions but that only proves the emotion exists not the object of it.

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6353
  • Darwins +747/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #718 on: March 30, 2014, 01:39:34 PM »
Quote
And happiness as a goal sucks. Big time. Because if we were all happy 24/7, nobody would ever clean the toilet.
Still, it's our goal, every human being wants to be happy.

I'm home for lunch and I don't have time right not to respond to everything, but I wanted to comment on your statement here.

A) If we were happy all the time, the value of happiness would wear out. We would have to invent a new name for a new good feeling and then aim for that.

B. Happiness sucks as a goal, but it works fine as a byproduct. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

I like being happy, but I don't expect to, nor would I want, to experience it all the time. It is distracting, it distorts reality and it leaves one more vulnerable than necessary. I like my happiness to last moments, not years, and I like it in small doses, so I can appreciate it more.

So while I don't mind occasional hits of happiness, I don't want it to be a constant. I've got things to do, people to see, cardboard to recycle, commutes to make, and friends with sick computers. Happiness would not serve me well if it were distracting me from responsibilities that I either enjoy or accept.

Don't put happiness on a pinnacle. It doesn't fit, and trying to make it do so only makes it worse.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6505
  • Darwins +849/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #719 on: March 30, 2014, 05:55:17 PM »
Come on, Lukvance. You are implying that you believe everything is real.

Anything anyone can imagine or dream up is true in the real world. Fictional movies, fairy tales, all real. A guy in a blue leotard can really stop a speeding train with his super-strength.  Mr. Spock is really doing battle with Klingons in space, genies are really popping out of bottles and granting wishes, green-skinned witches are riding brooms and attacking farm girls. Gigantic bunnies really do bring painted eggs and candy to children.  I don't think that is what you mean. (I hope that is not what you mean.)

But of course people can be influenced by things that don't actually exist, including gods. It happens all the time. Con artists, scammers, politicians, prostitutes, psychics, drug dealers and advertisers base their livelihoods on people believing things that are not true. The fact that someone believes a story does not make that story true. You need evidence other than someone's belief.

There is no fast, easy, safe product that will help anyone to lose weight without dieting or exercise--although millions of people believe it. There is no sure-fire business that will make anyone a million bucks working from home a few hours a week although millions of people believe it. There is no way to give every elderly person generous government benefits and maintain a large military, while simultaneously reducing everyone's taxes and balancing the budget although millions of people believe it. Nobody has the power to predict the future or to communicate with the dead although millions of people believe it.

None of these things exists, even though people are influenced by them all the time.
 
Many people won't buy a house where there has been a recent death, fearing ghosts or a curse. Realtors try to conceal this info so they can sell the house. The fact is that most houses have had someone die there, but people don't find ghosts in every house. Just the ones with a highly publicized death, like a murder. Wonder why that is. Are ghosts real? Do you think every house has a ghost in it?

Children are afraid to go to sleep in a dark room because they think there are monsters under the bed. Are monsters real? Do you actually think there are real monsters under every scared child's bed? Are you 5 years old?

Lots of people report that they have been abducted and experimented on by alien beings. So many, in fact, that we should be able to see satellite images of people being beamed up out of their beds every night all over the world. At least you would think someone would have caught an abduction or an alien on their cell phone by now. Are alien visitors real? Do you think aliens from other planets are here on earth kidnapping people every night?

I have lived in different countries and have seen a lot of people doing things based on magic, spirits and so forth that are not real, or at least show no evidence of being real. You sound like you are willing to believe in anything someone says is true.

BTW Have you sent your bank account info to Nigeria yet? There is a prince who needs your help. (If you got an email from the prince asking you for money, would do you think he is real?)
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1334
  • Darwins +96/-11
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #720 on: March 30, 2014, 06:48:31 PM »
Because they should not be influenced by something that does not exist.

Other people's mistakes are easier to see than your own. That is why you should question your assumptions. Certainty is the death of discovery.

Fake gods will try to use the same process than real God...and ultimately fail. My God doesn't have to hide.

This is so funny. Shep and Lukvance use exactly the same sentence against each other. One catholic, one anti catholic.

Just out of interest Lukvance, do you think these fake gods are demons?
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6505
  • Darwins +849/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #721 on: March 30, 2014, 09:52:04 PM »
Lukvance, why would a loving, caring god allow fake gods to trick people in his name, with eternal life, salvation, heaven and hell at stake? Think about this carefully.

Would any loving parent allow criminals to come into their house disguised as the real parents, and let them abuse their kids? (Please say no.) That is what your god does when fake gods, false religions, demons, or whatever are given free rein over trusting, seeking people. Since most people adopt the religion taught to them as children, this is even more egregious behavior on the part of your god--letting beings he knows to be evil trick children.

What possible reason could there be for such a lapse in loving, caring protection believers claim for their god? If it is a "test of faith" well, screw your god. I cannot get my mind around "testing" my child's faith or loyalty or obedience with the kind of tricks that believers attribute to their god. Such behavior constitutes, at the very minimum, a massive abuse of trust to any sane person.

If it was a real person acting this way, it would be criminal behavior that borders on the psychotic. Don't even get me started on god letting the serpent lie to Eve or god letting Abraham get as close as possible to killing Isaac. These stories are so similar to a cartoon archenemy masterminding ways to fool the hero, that it is clearly the stuff of myth and legend. What is sad and a bit scary is that you think this stuff is not only true, but somehow laudable and admirable behavior.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6353
  • Darwins +747/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #722 on: March 30, 2014, 10:12:41 PM »
What nogodsforme just said brings up another question. Why am I more moral than your god? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

Why am I more moral? If I were a god, I wouldn't play games with the people I made. I wouldn't toy with their emotions, I wouldn't allow them to kill each other in my name, I wouldn't let them doubt my existence, I wouldn't allow a situation where my doubters would suffer for an eternity. I'd tell people what to expect after they die, and communicate with them on a regular basis. Nor would I pick favorites and allow competing religions simply because folks didn't know about me. If I felt a need to send kids (more than one, the world is a big place), I wouldn't run around secretly impregnating teenaged girls. Mrs. God and I would make them, send them down, and send writers too, to record what the kids actually said, and why. And I certainly wouldn't have to worry about anyone offing them, because everyone would know the whole story and understand both my motivations and why the kids were there. Because that's the kind of god I am.

Hide and seek is for kids, losers and criminals. A real god wouldn't play those games. I certainly wouldn't.

And that love you feel, Lukvance? If I were your god, no one would doubt you, and you would be able to describe it much better because I'd give you words that worked. And everyone else would know what you are talking about because I'd effect them the same way.

Oh yea, and my holy book? It would be much larger than Wikipedia, updated daily and accurate to a fault.

All those excuses you have to make for your god? They would be unnecessary if it was me.

Hence, I'm much more moral. As a bonus, I'm also more competent.

Go figure.

Edit: for clarity
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6505
  • Darwins +849/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #723 on: March 31, 2014, 02:54:40 PM »
Most people are more moral than the god described in the bible, thanks be to Thor. When human leaders abuse their power like Jehovah, we do not worship their memory. We do not tell people to try to be like them. We call them "Mad King so and so" or "Bloody Queen bladiblah". We call them evil bastard dictators. If we don't overthrow or assassinate them, it is out of fear, not out of respect or love. We curse them behind their backs, and spit when we say their names.

Stalin, Hitler, Genghis Khan, Kim Jong Il, Idi Amin, Pol Pot and the Taliban have done the same sh!t that god does in the bible:

committing mass murder-- that's a biggie;

making up arbitrary rules that either change randomly or never change;

meting out extremely harsh penalties for disobedience[1];

helping favorite ethnic or cultural groups to succeed;

making sure other groups (like other religions, gays, women, non-believers) have worse lives;

torturing innocent people just for fun, or to make a point to someone else;

punishing kids for their parent's mistakes or crimes;

issuing vague rulings or commands and then going nuts when people don't comply the way the leader wanted;

claiming to be perfectly good  and all-knowing when that is clearly not the case.

Anyone familiar with the bible can match at least one event from this list with some action attributed to god. Religious people have to then twist themselves into knots to explain why the exact same horrible behavior they understandably condemn[2] is perfectly okay-- if you are god...
 1. even if the people could not possibly have complied with the rules, or did not understand the rules
 2. esp. when done by "atheistic" dictators like Chairman Mao or Saddam Hussein, not so much when done by members of their own faith like the pilgrims, the Inquisition, the Crusaders or the Conquistadores
« Last Edit: March 31, 2014, 02:58:40 PM by nogodsforme »
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1931
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #724 on: March 31, 2014, 07:19:02 PM »
Love can be observed from one person to another, [...] Love can be observed by others watching others

Is that all there is? Or is there other reasons why you think love is real?
You're worth more than my time