Do you believe in God?

[Spice]

Speaking personally, I have no idea what "logic" you're referring to.



No, it really isn't.

Try reading some of Lucretius' _On the Nature of Things_. Perhaps Book 2, beginning with line 383 that begins:
"It is a simple matter for us to explain by reasoning of the mind why the fire of lightning has far more penetrating current than the fire that emanates from our torches on earth. You could say that the fire of lightning, being of celestial origin, . . ."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Kalam

That one isn't even an argument for God.

 

[Balthazzar]

perceive is to detect with my senses. Sensations can be induced by a number of means. If I feel something touching my arm when I do not see or otherwise detect anything there, what is that evidence of? If I see a ghostly figure, what is that evidence of? If I experience a revelatory vision, what is that evidence of? It feels to me like God...but what does that mean?

Beyond that, I know that my senses--or even any technological detectors I might use--actually only detect a very limited range of existing conditions, and can be easily overwhelmed by more powerful stimuli sources. And knowing that a telescope can image a galaxy billions of lightyears away, it is beyond my comprehension...sure, I can look at the smudge on the image and say wow...but...

Conceive is the mental processing of my mind. I have been aware since I was young that there are some things I just can't conceive. I can conceive of a mile...I've walked that distance many times, and I'm familiar with many paths at least a mile long. So I can think of ten of them in sequence...I've experienced that many times, and am familiar with many such paths. But a hundred of them...well, that's getting iffy. I've hiked that far in week or so a couple of times. I can think of driving that distance, which I've done thousands of times, but my knowledge, my conception, is not as detailed nor as accurate. Now, a thousand miles...

How about the distance to the moon? No, 235,000 miles is quite frankly beyond my comprehension. And then there's millions and billions and trillions of miles...Nope...no comprehension at all...I can only conceive of such by manipulating symbols that stand for incomprehensible quantities, measures, or relationships. And the cosmos is many, many orders of magnitude larger, and smaller...

Now, how can I comprehend--conceive--of an entity that knows and can control everything within the visible cosmic horizon? How could such an entity actually know and relate to me, a small being on a small planet in a typical galaxy...I can perceive the stars and planets, the galaxy...but I can't conceive of them...oh, sure, I can make maps of them, but that's not the reality...

I know the feeling, only I'm less capable with the numbers. Inability to conceive or comprehend something not yet understood or experienced is not at all foreign. My imagination rarely does anything justice deserved. Sensory perception of a dog ...scent, sight, smell I cannot comprehend yet it has been witnessed many times throughout my life. It makes me wonder our next few steps as humans in the evolutionary chain of events yet to take place. I can't imagine what we might become.

 

[danieldemol]

You should also check out the Wajibul Wujood argument of Ibn Rushd. Interesting.

Wajib al-wujud or the Necessary Existent is that existent which does not depend on any other existent for its existence according to my understanding.

The material realm fits that description.

The full argument is here: Wajib Al-Wujud | Encyclopedia.com

 

[danieldemol]

Likewise, perhaps a peer reviewed science article demonstrating that our existence does not require intelligence, as for example, the ability to perceive or infer information; and to retain it so as to be applied to adaptive behaviors within an environment or context.?

I have covid at the moment so apologies if I'm not understanding.

You seem to be putting a different claim into my mouth.

Sure our continued survival requires us to behave intelligently and for part of the chain of our ancestors that was the case also.

However I do not think that is what @Spice was claiming or at least I understood it differently.

The words used were "the unfathomable intelligent make-up of our existence"

For starters we fathom adaptive behaviours within an environmental context.

I took it as more of a word salad like reference to intelligent design which is long ago debunked in the law courts.

 

[Balthazzar]

Nice. Thanks.

It's interesting how my Abrahamic roots correspond nicely with my pantheistic views in some circles. I've read a few Jewish teachers over the years but couldn't remember which ones, so I did a search and thought I'd share the first one as food for thought, given that you acknowledged my pantheistic leanings.

Edit: The concept as noted in the text is accepted in some circles and rejected in others. I'm of the mind that all is God and God is in all and God is all there will ever be ... as we make our abode within the substance of. It was suggested that there is some controversy surrounding the panentheistic view and how this might affect God's ordinances for man. It doesn't seem like all that great an issue, but I'm not Jewish, so I am speaking from a personal position as I understand Abrahamic texts, namely Isiah 45 and as a person who lives life inside that which I view God to be and temporal, so I suppose it comes down to benefit as people and obtaining peaceful relations with our neighbors. Einstein and Spinoza were both notable Jewish men who held the same views of God, which are very similar to my own. I was just recently introduced to Spinoza and I've always been intrigued by einsteins genius. Making sense of God and life and science has been a life-long struggle and academic for me.

By: Rabbi Louis Jacobs

 

[Koldo]

Plenty. Many.

Really? How many?
I have never.

 

[danieldemol]

That one isn't even an argument for God.

You didn't expound much so I decided to do some digging;

In a critique of Craig's book The Kalam Cosmological Argument, published in 1979, Michael Martin states:[61]

"It should be obvious that Craig's conclusion that a single personal agent created the universe is a non sequitur. At most, this Kalam argument shows that some personal agent or agents created the universe. Craig cannot validly conclude that a single agent is the creator. On the contrary, for all he shows, there may have been trillions of personal agents involved in the creation."
Source: Kalam cosmological argument - Wikipedia

Is that what you meant by not an argument for God?

 

[danieldemol]

Kalam

Whilst I'm waiting for an exposition from 9/10ths may as well hear what kind of God you believe in if you are willing to share.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You didn't expound much so I decided to do some digging;

Here's the Kalam Cosmological Argument:

- Everything that begins to exist is caused.
- The universe began to exist.
- Therefore, the universe is caused.

In a critique of Craig's book The Kalam Cosmological Argument, published in 1979, Michael Martin states:[61]

"It should be obvious that Craig's conclusion that a single personal agent created the universe is a non sequitur. At most, this Kalam argument shows that some personal agent or agents created the universe. Craig cannot validly conclude that a single agent is the creator. On the contrary, for all he shows, there may have been trillions of personal agents involved in the creation."
Source: Kalam cosmological argument - Wikipedia

Is that what you meant by not an argument for God?

I meant that the argument doesn't even mention God.

William Lane Craig likes to tack the label "Kalam" onto a lot of stuff that isn't actually in the argument.

 

[danieldemol]

Premise 2 of the KCA looks unsound to me because it is not known if there was a point in time at which the universe did not exist. According to my understanding we only know a little about the universe from a few seconds after the rapid expansion began;

'Although astronomers understand what the universe was like just a few seconds after the Big Bang, no one yet knows what happened at the instant of the Big Bang - or what came before.'

Sourced from this 2009 article;

--Universe Forum--Big Bang--What powered it?

 

[RestlessSoul]

I believe science discovered the opposite. That far from our existence requiring unfathomable intelligence all it required was chemistry and the blind process of natural selection.

But if you can find me a peer reviewed science article referring to the "unfathomable intelligent make up of our existence" I'd be impressed.

Firstly, it has certainly not been established that complex chemistry is enough to initiate abiogenesis. If all that was required to create life is the right chemistry and the right conditions, it ought not to be too difficult to produce life in a lab; science hasn’t come close to doing this yet.

Secondly, that the universe has evolved in such a manner as to facilitate the evolution of life in at least one tiny corner of one vaste galaxy, is miraculous (by any definition of that word) to anyone who retains the capacity to wonder.

 

[danieldemol]

Firstly, it has certainly not been established that complex chemistry is enough to initiate abiogenesis. If all that was required to create life is the right chemistry and the right conditions, it ought not to be too difficult to produce life in a lab; science hasn’t come close to doing this yet.

In my view that is not necessarily true. We know for example that Nuclear fusion was discovered in the 1920s to be the source of energy for the sun, but it wasn't until last year that scientists managed a fusion reaction that created more energy than it used in a lab.

Sometimes there are difficulties in reproducing certain conditions in a lab that are naturally occurring. But in my view science has come close to doing that.

'we now have several possible explanations for how life's first organic compounds could have formed – the energy could have been provided by a lightning strike, meteorites, or hydrothermal vents.'

Source: Can we recreate the spark of life?

The article delves into the various stages of early life reproduced in labs in my view.

Secondly, that the universe has evolved in such a manner as to facilitate the evolution of life in at least one tiny corner of one vaste galaxy, is miraculous (by any definition of that word) to anyone who retains the capacity to wonder.

By *any* definition?! That's a tall order.

'an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency.'
Source: define miracle - Google Search

I believe the scientists in the BBC article linked above have explained how life began using natural laws.

'There's a consensus that for life to exist you need organic, carbon-containing compounds like methane, coupled with water and a source of energy. This spark would kickstart the chemical reactions needed to create more complex molecules, such as amino acids – the building blocks of proteins, and RNA – a nucleic acid present in all living cells with structural similarities to DNA.'

Sounds natural to me.

 

[danieldemol]

There's a discussion here of Aquinas 5 proofs of God with accompanying philosophical debate here if anyone's interested;

Personally I felt the guy on the left was refreshing compared to the presenter of Aquinas views because his philosophy seemed more attuned to what modern people know about the Universe and the quantum world scientifically about uncaused events happening etc.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have noticed that poll's with this kind of question shows that most in this forum who are active are either Atheists or Agnostics. Actual religious people who believe in a God in a religious forum are the minority. It's not strange.

A belief in God is not absolutely due to a particular religion. It could also be based on reason and logic and it has been discussed for a long long time. Yet, it seems to be ignored and a lot of times the cart is shoved before the horse for whatever anti religious argumentation deemed needed.

Belief in God could stem from logical reasoning. Philosophical argumentation. Religions and scriptures are not absolutely necessary. I believe people should go to fundamentals rather than banking on peripherals to kill God. I think that's exactly what Nietzsche said being an Atheist with nihilistic tendencies.

What do you say??

I say that you will find that the vast majority of humans who believe in a god, only do so because their parents / peers do.

This is why you can pretty accurately guess someone's religion if all you know is which country they grew up in.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I say that you will find that the vast majority of humans who believe in a god, only do so because their parents / peers do.

This is why you can pretty accurately guess someone's religion if all you know is which country they grew up in.

Yeah and if the number of non-religious grow in a given culture, you can predict that there is a chance that a person is non-religionus and have a given worldview besides just being non-religious.
We as non-religious are not outside culuture. My farther was an atheist and my morther a culture Christian and funny enough I became an atheist.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

I have noticed that poll's with this kind of question shows that most in this forum who are active are either Atheists or Agnostics. Actual religious people who believe in a God in a religious forum are the minority. It's not strange.

A belief in God is not absolutely due to a particular religion. It could also be based on reason and logic and it has been discussed for a long long time. Yet, it seems to be ignored and a lot of times the cart is shoved before the horse for whatever anti religious argumentation deemed needed.

Belief in God could stem from logical reasoning. Philosophical argumentation. Religions and scriptures are not absolutely necessary. I believe people should go to fundamentals rather than banking on peripherals to kill God. I think that's exactly what Nietzsche said being an Atheist with nihilistic tendencies.

What do you say??

It’s different once you believe

 

[RestlessSoul]

I say that you will find that the vast majority of humans who believe in a god, only do so because their parents / peers do.

This is why you can pretty accurately guess someone's religion if all you know is which country they grew up in.

You say that, but all you offer in support is confidence in your own guesswork. A confidence I see no reason to share.

In any case, your second statement does not logically follow from the first; your proposal only works if you fail to distinguish a person's belief in god, which is personal, from their religion, which is cultural.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yeah and if the number of non-religious grow in a given culture, you can predict that there is a chance that a person is non-religionus and have a given worldview besides just being non-religious.
We as non-religious are not outside culuture. My farther was an atheist and my morther a culture Christian and funny enough I became an atheist.

You say "funny enough". I say that it's not surprising at all.

If your parents were hardcore muslims, chances would have been rather huge that you would be as well.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You say that, but all you offer in support is confidence in your own guesswork.

5. Shared beliefs between parents and teens

Research suggests that parents have a large impact on their children’s religious behaviors. For example, there is considerable overlap between how

www.pewresearch.org

1. Links between childhood religious upbringing and current religious identity

People from mixed religious backgrounds take a variety of spiritual paths as adults, with many adopting their mother’s religion as their own, some

www.pewresearch.org

A confidence I see no reason to share.

Seriously?

So if you meet a person that was born and raised in a muslim household, you would consider it a completely random guess that that person is likely muslim?
For real?

In any case, your second statement does not logically follow from the first; your proposal only works if you fail to distinguish a person's belief in god, which is personal, from their religion, which is cultural.

So a person that was born and raised in Iran isn't more likely to be a muslim as opposed to something else?
A person that was born and raised in the US isn't more likely to be a christian as opposed to something else?

Religious beliefs in gods IS a cultural phenomenon.

Pointing to exceptions is not going to change the general / overall trend.


It is very very accurate to say that for the most part, someone's religion is geographically predetermined.
Even in this day of globalization and internet, that is still the case.

Guess the religion based on the culture they were born into and more often then not, you'll be correct.
Humans tend to be products of their environment.

In Albania (my father's native country), there is this saying: "To know a man, know his father"