Do you believe in God?

[Polymath257]

I have read quite a number of arguments for the existence of some 'God'. I have found none of them even close to being convincing.

At this point, there is nothing I believe in that I would label as 'God'.

So, I believe the universe simply exists. It has no cause (because causes are within the universe). By some definitions, this can make the universe itself 'God'. That, to me, seems like an abuse of language.

I believe, also, that within the universe there are multiple events that are 'uncaused'. That destroys most of the 'first cause' arguments for the existence of some 'God'.

I also believe things have properties that are then described by natural laws. These laws lead to increasing complexity over time, especially in small, heated systems like the Earth. This destroys most of the arguments from design.

The ontology arguments seems to me to be completely incoherent. It implicitly assumes existence to get existence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I have read quite a number of arguments for the existence of some 'God'. I have found none of them even close to being convincing.

At this point, there is nothing I believe in that I would label as 'God'.

So, I believe the universe simply exists. ...

Well, then we agree. But remember it is a belief.

 

[Spice]

A God of their understanding?
Where did this understanding come from if not from what someone else told them?

The individual discernment of experience in one's life. People do have minds whether they choose to use them or accept what others think. There's that rascal free-will again.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The individual discernment of experience in one's life. People do have minds whether they choose to use them or accept what others think. There's that rascal free-will again.

What is rascal?

 

[Spice]

What is rascal?

Online dictionary says: a mischievous or cheeky person, especially a child or man (typically used in an affectionate way).
"a lovable rascal"

Additionally, in common Southern use, something or someone that can be slippery, sly, coy, etc.

 

[RestlessSoul]

This would be an example of what I was talking about: basing calculations on what the author finds conceivable instead of on what's demonstrably possible.

IOW, garbage in, garbage out.

The garbage in this case (see, again, section 3.2 of the paper) being Alexander Friedman and Georges Lemaitre's independently arrived at solutions to Einstein's field equations; these, whether or not they originated from Einstein's arse, being the axioms on which the standard model of cosmology was based, prior to confirmation by observation (of red-shifting and CMBR).

 

[Polymath257]

Any outcome the probability of which is less than 1 in 10^70 might reasonably be considered a statistical impossibility.

Not even close to being true. Take, for example, the molecules of gas in your room. The probability of those molecules each being on the side of the room that they are is far, far, far lower than that 1 in 10^70 figure. But it objectively is the case.

The problem comes from calculating the probability of some specific outcome as opposed to the probability of there being *some* outcome that meets certain criteria.

Also, as a side note, way too many calculations leading to small probabilities are of specific outcomes and are found by multiplying probabilities that are *known* to not be independent (thereby negating the calculation itself). Often, when even simple experiments or simulations are done, these calculated probabilities are shown to be horribly wrong because consideration was not made of multiple routes to similar results.

 

[Polymath257]

And where did these "natural laws" originate?

As I see it, they did not 'originate' as that would imply a time when they did not exist. As properties, they simply exist. They were not 'caused'.

 

[firedragon]

Yeah, but we can observe as a relevant part of the universe that is only the case in a limited sense for all of religion. And as far as I can tell that religion should be done as logical, is only relevant to a given person, if that person accepts the norm that it sholud be done logically.
So, yes, how you think as per logic is relevant to you, but not relevant to another person who in fact do it differntly. And that is not irrelevant to that person. It is only irrelevant to you.
So if you want to play relevant and irrelevant for all humans as not based on your thinking, present your case. But if you are like others including me, who make sense as individuals in part, then there is a limit to both relevant and irrelevant as universal.

Can you give me a sound syllogism that's relevant to one person and irrelevant to another?

Thanks.

 

[firedragon]

Regardless, that doesn't change the fact that religious organisations and leaders are much more likely to promote blind faith and doctrine rather than open and honest logical assessment.

Can you provide a research on that? Any statistics or actual data on it? I ask since you are generalizing to all religions.

Thanks.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The garbage in this case (see, again, section 3.2 of the paper) being Alexander Friedman and Georges Lemaitre's independently arrived at solutions to Einstein's field equations; these, whether or not they originated from Einstein's arse, being the axioms on which the standard model of cosmology was based, prior to confirmation by observation (of red-shifting and CMBR).

Einstein's field equations can't be solved without approximations or assumptions. Those approximations and assumptions are where the garbage is inserted into the arguments.

Edit: and not all solutions of an equation are equally probable. As an analogy, you can do the calculations to see that a coin balanced on its edge would have all forces balanced, so it would pop out as a possible solution to the question of "how many ways can a coin flip land?" based just on the math, but the coin is so unstable on its edge that the possibility of it landing on its edge can be generally ignored for all practical purposes.

Edit 2: there are actually 240 ways a quarter could land in a coin flip and be balanced (head, tails, balancing on any of 119 bumps around the edge, or straddling any of the 119 grooves around the edge). A quick scan of the paper you linked to suggests that they've assumed that all solutions to Einstein's Field Equations are equally likely, which is a lot like assuming that the probability of a quarter coming up heads is 1 in 240.

 

[Spice]

As I see it, they did not 'originate' as that would imply a time when they did not exist. As properties, they simply exist. They were not 'caused'.

So it goes back into infinity, where there lies the Mysteries that are for many, not all, the unknown source "lazily" but humbly referred to as God.

 

[firedragon]

when the peripherals you mention are primarily the reason people support a belief in God.

Do you have any research studies on that? You are generalizing this to the whole.

 

[Koldo]

The individual discernment of experience in one's life. People do have minds whether they choose to use them or accept what others think. There's that rascal free-will again.

It is an illusion to think that individuals come up with their ideas all by themselves. They have, rather, built them up on what preceded them.

 

[firedragon]

Really? How many?

I personally know many. You want names?

Hamza (Darren) from Hamza's Den
Yusuf Ponders from Pondering Soul
Justin the EA show

I gave those names because they are well known. If I mention others who are not found on the internet it's absurd so there is no point.

Thanks.

 

[Spice]

It is an illusion to think that individuals come up with their ideas all by themselves. They have, rather, built them up on what preceded them.

Absolutely. There is nothing "new" but much undiscovered and people do make discoveries. Maybe not a first, but if a previous epiphany is unknown, then it is a discovery for them.

 

[firedragon]

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

I know. But thanks.

 

[firedragon]

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...

Okay. Thank you for the explanation.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I have read quite a number of arguments for the existence of some 'God'. I have found none of them even close to being convincing.

At this point, there is nothing I believe in that I would label as 'God'.

So, I believe the universe simply exists. It has no cause (because causes are within the universe). By some definitions, this can make the universe itself 'God'. That, to me, seems like an abuse of language.

I believe, also, that within the universe there are multiple events that are 'uncaused'. That destroys most of the 'first cause' arguments for the existence of some 'God'.

I also believe things have properties that are then described by natural laws. These laws lead to increasing complexity over time, especially in small, heated systems like the Earth. This destroys most of the arguments from design.

The ontology arguments seems to me to be completely incoherent. It implicitly assumes existence to get existence.

The argument for the universe itself being God needs refining, I think. Poets and philosophers from multiple mystic traditions talk about the universe as an expression of the will of God. This, of course, makes sense only if we attribute to the universe some will or agency. The evidence for this, would be the existence in the universe of conscious beings looking out at it in wonder. Here are three examples of this principle being articulated by thinkers operating out of very different philosophical paradigms;

"I was a Hidden Treasure
and I yearned,
I loved
to be known intimately

So I created the heavens and the Earth
so that they may know Me
intimately."

- Hadith Qudsi

"I am the eye with which the Universe beholds itself
And knows itself divine."

- Percy Shelley

"We are the cosmos made conscious, and life is the means by which the universe understands itself."

- Professor Brian Cox

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

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, be careful what you wish for.

This is what can happen when you mix religion with logic.

Questions of Idolatry and religious extremism arise.

At least they do if you are Edward Nelson, anyway.

Mathematics and Religion​

Roundtable discussion with Dominic Balestra, Loren Graham, Edward Nelson, Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, and Max Tegmark.

Transcript: http://philoctetes.org/documents/Mathematics_and_Religion.pdf

Mathematics and Faith
by Edward Nelson
Department of Mathematics Princeton University

https://web.math.princeton.edu/~nelson/papers/faith.pdf

Confessions of an Apostate Mathematician
by Edward Nelson
Department of Mathematics Princeton University

https://web.math.princeton.edu/~nelson/papers/rome.pdf

Predicative Arithmetic
by Edward Nelson

https://web.math.princeton.edu/~nelson/books/pa.pdf