Does It Matter If God Exists?

[Left Coast]

Could we put aside the strawman.

What strawman? Do you have formal education in physics or not? It was a question.

I know man does not understand gravity. If you have any objections. I wouldn't mind if you present your evidence against the statement.

That's not how burden of proof works, friend. You claim you know not one person on Earth understands gravity. It's on you to demonstrate that, if you want us to take it seriously as a claim.

Another strawman?
How does knowing the shape of the earth benefit your life?

Again, it's not really the belief I'm concerned with, it's the fact of the matter, irrespective of what you or I believe.

Here is what you said in response to Artist...

That's really the point of my question.
If your objection to God being necessary, is that it has no bearing on a person's life (and this is how your OP is structured), then how does knowing the shape of the earth become necessary for living a good life.

We have to pick up on these subtleties.

I didn't say knowing the shape of the earth is necessary for living a good life.

What @KAT-KAT asked me was: "But why ask if it matters if God exists without applying this principle equally to your life in other ways? Like, does a proper understanding of gravity matter? What about atoms? What about whether the Earth is round or flat?"

I said that those things matter because they demonstrably, accurately explain features of the world that affect us. God, however, doesn't. God also doesn't explain how a good life is lived.

Does that help explain?

 

[Left Coast]

It's an irrelevant question that involves the assumption that we're talking about anthropomorphism (which is Shirk).

That's a fascinating statement. So questioning whether God's existence matters doesn't matter. That makes me chuckle.

 

[nPeace]

Gravity is a physical connection between space and matter that is precisely described by Einstein’s geometric theory of gravity. In simple terms, the theory states that matter curves the space around it, and it moves with respect to the curvature of space, including curvature caused by other matter.

Gravity - Wikipedia

Are you here saying you understand what that "physical connection" is?

 

[nPeace]

Actually I can. I see no evidence that any of those lives require a God. Would you like to show me some?

I did... I think. It made no difference.

Please demonstrate how God is responsible for sunshine.

It's not for me to demonstrate, if you can't demonstrate that God isn't responsible for your life, and sunshine.

What strawman? Do you have formal education in physics or not? It was a question.

Yes. one that I answered.
Hence a strawman as I asked a question too.

That's not how burden of proof works, friend. You claim you know not one person on Earth understands gravity. It's on you to demonstrate that, if you want us to take it seriously as a claim.

How can one understand something they don't know.It's like saying we understand this phenomenon Dark Energy.

Spoiler: Gravity

What is gravity
We don't really know. We can define what it is as a field of influence, because we know how it operates in the universe. And some scientists think that it is made up of particles called gravitons which travel at the speed of light. However, if we are to be honest, we do not know what gravity "is" in any fundamental way - we only know how it behaves.

Again, it's not really the belief I'm concerned with, it's the fact of the matter, irrespective of what you or I believe.

What kind of an answer is that?
Are you sure you are responding to the right question?

I didn't say knowing the shape of the earth is necessary for living a good life.

I know. Obviously.
I didn't say that either.
Let's bury this though. As they say, 'Water under the bridge'.

What @KAT-KAT asked me was: "But why ask if it matters if God exists without applying this principle equally to your life in other ways? Like, does a proper understanding of gravity matter? What about atoms? What about whether the Earth is round or flat?"

I said that those things matter because they demonstrably, accurately explain features of the world that affect us. God, however, doesn't. God also doesn't explain how a good life is lived.

Does that help explain?

This
Because God is unnecessary for living a good life, so far as I can tell.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

No... here, I'll spell it out for you. You make EVERY EXCEPTION you possibly can for your own beliefs, and will point to everything in the world you think is subjective and say that it is "just like" your beliefs in God, and yet you would immediately reject most people whose personal beliefs include that they, themselves, are the second coming of Christ. Tell me you wouldn't, and I will stop right here. But if you WOULD reject their claims, and their personal, subjective experience that they are The Christ, then you are rejecting EXACTLY the types of claims I reject of yours when you say that you believe God exists, and hint that I should also accept this as "fact." Exactly the same. UNLESS, of course, you can make good on your statement that you can back up your belief in God with something substantial - which, considering all that I have been talking about and describing, would mean that you can produce something that should compel even me to believe. Of course... if you don't have that, then again, I implore you, keep your beliefs to yourself.

Okay, I had to go back in the thread and reread it. I get now. I get what you assume about me. You assume that I use the same methodology as you for correct. I am sometimes slow and have to take some time, before I understand other humans' cognition and value system.

So some base assumptions about the universe. It will be a variant of methodological naturalism and since online Internet source of the assumptions behind methodological naturalism are hard to find, I had to use a secondary source:
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

So here are mine:
Most humans assume we can in general trust our senses, reasoning and experience and we don't assume solipsism.
We then make a map of how that works.

Now you assume that I use the same forms of correct for how I make a map and navigate in the world as you do. Well, in some cases I do and in others I don't.
So the question is this: Can I for some forms of facts and some forms of correct in effect do it differently?

Now, yes, I can and here is how I do it:
I differentiate between 4 kinds of facts and correct:

1. Objective facts shared by us all.
2. Limited abstract cognitive reasoning; i.e. e.g. 2+2=4, 2+2=11 and 2+2=5.
3. How we individual evaluate our own behavior and the behavior of others.
4. What we individually believe the world really is, if we have such beliefs.

So your concrete example: Do I reject other beliefs of what the world really is? Well, yes, but not in the same sense as you do. This is a methodology from social work and it goes like this. You always accept as real that another human have different beliefs than you, if that is the case. I.e. I accept that you have different beliefs than me and I accept they are correct for you and incorrect for me. It means that I don't use #1 and #2. I use #3 and #4 on us both. I use a subjective correct, where something can be correct for you and incorrect for me and so in reverse. So I don't claim that you have to give correct evidence using #1 and #2 for #3 and #4.

So your example of a human claiming to be Jesus. I accept that this human believe so and it is real for that human. I accept the subjectivity in that and don't consider it incorrect as you do as per evidence. I consider it correct for that person and incorrect for me. I then act according to what is correct for me. I state that I believe differently and that we can both believe differently.
So here it is for you: I accept that you demand objective evidence as correct for what reality really is and you don't accept subjective beliefs like I do. I don't reject your belief as incorrect, because it is correct for you. I just state that I act differently than you when it comes to #3 and #4.

So here it is: You reject as objectively incorrect for #4 other beliefs. I reject them as subjectively incorrect for me, but accept them as subjectively correct for the other person that hold those different beliefs.

I was taught to do this: What the world really is, not just with natural/hard science and with different kinds of correct and facts than you. So yes, I reject your subjectivity as mine, but accept it as yours. Apparently you don't accept mine as far as I can tell, because I am incorrect for how the world really is.

 

[Polymath257]

Why is understanding gravity, which no man understands, important to you? Or how does knowing the shape of the earth affect your life, and how you live it?

Well, it may not be important for *you* to understand these things, but it is important to you that someone understand these things. How gravity works is relevant to designing bridges and buildings. The shape of the Earth is relevant to travel. Because of that, it is relevant for trade and the economy.

Both gravity and the shape of the Earth are relevant to getting satellites into orbit and keeping them there. That is relevant for communications and weather prediction. So, if you use a cell phone or computer, these are relevant to your life.

Flippantly saying that we don't understand gravity ignores the fact that we can use what we *do* understand to send satellites into orbit, probes to other planets, and explain a great deal about how the universe functions. Our ignorance about gravity is far, far less than it was 400 years ago, and much less than it was 100 years ago.

So, sure, it is possible for people to live, even today, and stay ignorant of these things. But it is quite important that *someone* understand them or else your world would crumble around you. And, staying ignorant only means people will stay at the bottom of the economic ladder because they don't have the knowledge to climb it.

And that affects lives.

 

[Polymath257]

All he needs is a good compass... but what does that have to do with Left Coast?

A compass is useless if you don't know the geometry. In other words, both the shape of the Earth and the position of the land and water on that sphere.

 

[Polymath257]

Please.
As much as anyone with a brain to understand what every person can read has.

In other words, essentially none.

 

[Polymath257]

How can one understand something they don't know.It's like saying we understand this phenomenon Dark Energy.

Spoiler: Gravity

What is gravity
We don't really know. We can define what it is as a field of influence, because we know how it operates in the universe. And some scientists think that it is made up of particles called gravitons which travel at the speed of light. However, if we are to be honest, we do not know what gravity "is" in any fundamental way - we only know how it behaves.

But that does NOT mean we are completely ignorant about gravity. Are there questions still to be answered (and even questions still to be asked)? Absolutely.

The key here is that word 'fundamental'. We do know the 'ultimate' theory of gravity? No. But we certainly know enough to say that we understand a great deal about gravity.

The point is that understanding isn't a yes/no thing: it is a progressive thing. We don't have to understand *everything* in order to understand *something*.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I was taught to do this: What the world really is, not just with natural/hard science and with different kinds of correct and facts than you. So yes, I reject your subjectivity as mine, but accept it as yours. Apparently you don't accept mine as far as I can tell, because I am incorrect for how the world really is.

Unfortunately, you DO reject my stance on things - it's the reason you challenge me when I say something about the implausibility of God based on the insufficient types of evidence that are always presented. If you truly accepted that it was just "correct for me" then why would you challenge me? Because it goes against what you believe to be objective fact about reality... that's why. Otherwise, wouldn't you just shrug your shoulders and say "well... that's true for him from his perspective"? But that isn't what you do... you come after me, and then we end up having these discussions.

And I don't even say that you are "incorrect for how the world really is." I don't claim you are incorrect... my only claim is that you don't have sufficient evidence, haven't provided it, seemingly REFUSE to provide it, and therefore I AM NOT GOING TO BELIEVE YOU. It really is as simple as that. I keep relaying to you why it is you are not to be believed unless you can actually produce valid, intersubjectively-verfiable evidence, and you keep saying things back like "Prove your feelings exist." Complete non sequiturs, in other words. We're not talking about my feelings... we're talking about your God. And if you can just admit that your God "exists" EXACTLY AS MY FEELINGS "EXIST" - i.e. present in reality only as a mind-state - then we're done, and all this grueling conversation ends. As a side note, believe me, you do the ideas you may have of the objective reality of God no end of disservice by comparing them to "feelings."

 

[Aupmanyav]

Are you here saying you understand what that "physical connection" is?

Matter / Mass is energy. Energy and space are co-originates. One affects the other.
We are learning about Dark Energy and Dark Matter. There are other explanations too.
"Inhomogeneous cosmologies assume that the backreactions of denser structures, as well as those of very empty voids, on space-time are significant enough that when not taken into account, they distort our understanding of time and our observations of distant objects. Following Thomas Buchert's publication of equations in 1997 and 2000 that derive from general relativity but also allow for the inclusion of local gravitational variations, a number of cosmological models were proposed under which the acceleration of the universe is in fact a misinterpretation of our astronomical observations and in which dark energy is unnecessary to explain them. For example, in 2007, David Wiltshire proposed a model (timescape cosmology) in which backreactions have caused time to run more slowly or, in voids, more quickly, thus giving the supernovae observed in 1998 the illusion of being further away than they were. Timescape cosmology may also imply that the expansion of the universe is in fact slowing."

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Unfortunately, you DO reject my stance on things - it's the reason you challenge me when I say something about the implausibility of God based on the insufficient types of evidence that are always presented. If you truly accepted that it was just "correct for me" then why would you challenge me? Because it goes against what you believe to be objective fact about reality... that's why. Otherwise, wouldn't you just shrug your shoulders and say "well... that's true for him from his perspective"? But that isn't what you do... you come after me, and then we end up having these discussions.

And I don't even say that you are "incorrect for how the world really is." I don't claim you are incorrect... my only claim is that you don't have sufficient evidence, haven't provided it, seemingly REFUSE to provide it, and therefore I AM NOT GOING TO BELIEVE YOU. It really is as simple as that. I keep relaying to you why it is you are not to be believed unless you can actually produce valid, intersubjectively-verfiable evidence, and you keep saying things back like "Prove your feelings exist." Complete non sequiturs, in other words. We're not talking about my feelings... we're talking about your God. And if you can just admit that your God "exists" EXACTLY AS MY FEELINGS "EXIST" - i.e. present in reality only as a mind-state - then we're done, and all this grueling conversation ends. As a side note, believe me, you do the ideas you may have of the objective reality of God no end of disservice by comparing them to "feelings."

Yeah, I get you. You believe that I believe God exists as an objective fact. I don't. I am a skeptic and I know nothing about the objective reality in the strong sense. I have beliefs, which appears to work and some of them are about the parts of the everyday world, which is objective. But some of them are about the subjective and how that works.

So yes, I reject you, because you believe something about me, which is not how I am. I tell you that it is different. I don't believe in evidence like you do. I believe differently about what kinds of evidence there is and what evidence I need for me to believe in God. And, no, I don't have to believe that God exists for me to believe in God.
I use my belief in God as subjective psychology. It makes me feel better.

 

[Left Coast]

It's not for me to demonstrate, if you can't demonstrate that God isn't responsible for your life, and sunshine.

But it is, though. Again, that's how burden of proof works. If you make a claim, it's on you to demonstrate it. It's not on everyone else to show that isn't the case.

Yes.

Oh, you do have formal education in physics? How much? High school? College? Was it your major?

How can one understand something they don't know.It's like saying we understand this phenomenon Dark Energy.
What is gravity
We don't really know. We can define what it is as a field of influence, because we know how it operates in the universe. And some scientists think that it is made up of particles called gravitons which travel at the speed of light. However, if we are to be honest, we do not know what gravity "is" in any fundamental way - we only know how it behaves.

As @Polymath257 already explained, that we don't know all things about a subject doesn't mean we "don't understand it." Gravity matters because it accurately, testably explains how things in our experience work. God does not.

What kind of an answer is that?
Are you sure you are responding to the right question?

Oy vey.

Are you sure you understand my original argument? Because it has nothing to do with whether I believe something is true or not. It has to do with what difference a thing makes even if I concede it is true.

So by analogy, I don't have to believe the earth is round to use a cell phone. However, that the Earth is in fact round, is relevant to my ability to use a cell phone. And that relevance can be demonstrated by showing how satellites work and so on.

Now you may think that's the case with God, in which case you're welcome to demonstrate how God is necessary to explain how one lives a good life. So far as I can tell, all definitions of a good life I'm aware of are human, and require no divine intervention to be defined or carried out.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Yeah, I get you. You believe that I believe God exists as an objective fact. I don't. I am a skeptic and I know nothing about the objective reality in the strong sense. I have beliefs, which appears to work and some of them are about the parts of the everyday world, which is objective. But some of them are about the subjective and how that works.

So yes, I reject you, because you believe something about me, which is not how I am. I tell you that it is different. I don't believe in evidence like you do. I believe differently about what kinds of evidence there is and what evidence I need for me to believe in God. And, no, I don't have to believe that God exists for me to believe in God.
I use my belief in God as subjective psychology. It makes me feel better.

I will take it then, that you do admit that it is most likely the case that your God exists in no way different than our feelings "exist." That is, needing a mind with presence of thoughts on the matter, and not beyond that. The evidence you seem willing to present suggests this, and your post here basically alludes to it. And while I understand why you will not directly state it, I feel this to be somewhat underhanded - an attempt to claim that you have knowledge of objective truths but still espouse the more reasonable position that admits that we can't necessarily reach objective truths. It's the reason you're going to come up against opposition like mine... you keep trying to have one foot in the door, when the sign clearly says that the door is to remain shut at all times.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Please demonstrate how God is responsible for sunshine.

It's not for me to demonstrate, if you can't demonstrate that God isn't responsible for your life, and sunshine.

What kind of dodge is this? Left Coast asked you a question, and you put the responsibility of proving that back on him!
My parents were responsible for engendering me, and now I am responsible for my life.
Sun is part of a seeming creation (that is because in my belief all that is observed is an illusion, 'maya'), and there seem to be centillions (or googol if you prefer that) of suns around in the universe.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I will take it then, that you do admit that it is most likely the case that your God exists in no way different than our feelings "exist." That is, needing a mind with presence of thoughts on the matter, and not beyond that. The evidence you seem willing to present suggests this, and your post here basically alludes to it. And while I understand why you will not directly state it, I feel this to be somewhat underhanded - an attempt to claim that you have knowledge of objective truths but still espouse the more reasonable position that admits that we can't necessarily reach objective truths. It's the reason you're going to come up against opposition like mine... you keep trying to have one foot in the door, when the sign clearly says that the door is to remain shut at all times.

You don't get, that I don't know. I don't know what reality is independent of me. I know what it is to me. And what objective reality is independent of me, is unknown to me. I know of relations which are objective in regards to my experiences.

I accept that it is possible that I am a Boltzmann Brain. But I can't know one way or another if it is the case or not.
Could Our Universe Be a Fake? | Closer to Truth

Imagine an advanced alien race running a part of this universe as a computer program and you are a part of it. How would you know?
So just as this natural examples are unknowable, God to me is unknowable. I am an agnostic.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You don't get, that I don't know. I don't know what reality is independent of me. I know what it is to me. And what objective reality is independent of me, is unknown to me. I know of relations which are objective in regards to my experiences.

I accept that it is possible that I am a Boltzmann Brain. But I can't know one way or another if it is the case or not.
Could Our Universe Be a Fake? | Closer to Truth

Imagine an advanced alien race running a part of this universe as a computer program and you are a part of it. How would you know?
So just as this natural examples are unknowable, God to me is unknowable. I am an agnostic.

All the more reason it makes no sense to go around informing people that "Hey - God might just exist!"

WHO CARES?

By that exact same logic, you should also be running around informing people "Hey - leprechauns might just exist!" But you don't do that! You are VERY PARTICULAR about the things you can't know the reality of that you challenge people's assumptions on. It just doesn't make sense. None. I understand that you don't get that - OBVIOUSLY. Which is one of the reasons I am keen on trying to explain it to you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

All the more reason it makes no sense to go around informing people that "Hey - God might just exist!"

WHO CARES?

By that exact same logic, you should also be running around informing people "Hey - leprechauns might just exist!" But you don't do that! You are VERY PARTICULAR about the things you can't know the reality of that you challenge people's assumptions on. It just doesn't make sense. None. I understand that you don't get that - OBVIOUSLY. Which is one of the reasons I am keen on trying to explain it to you.

Well, I can separate metaphysics from the everyday world. Leprechauns are believed to be in the everyday world. The God I believe in, if you want to go for the everyday world only exists in my beliefs. As for metaphysics I don't know.
As for all humans and how they ought to believe that has nothing to do with religion as such.

Here it is: Science can only get you so far. https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12 The rest is without evidence as per science. Personally I believe in God and that is it. I know that other people believe that they know the metaphysical(ontological) state of reality as such. I have just figured out that I personally don't need that. I hold the personal opinion that it works for me to believe in God.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Well, I can separate metaphysics from the everyday world. Leprechauns are believed to be in the everyday world.

Well what about Shimdoodleblarbinfarbs? What about those? They only exist in the "metaphysical" space also! A second-cousin of mine told me about them, and he has some sort of book also - well, to be honest it is really more of a pamphlet, that was given to him by his Dog, Rufus. Why aren't you going around, promoting them? You're trying to wriggle free from the damning position I have placed you in... but you're failing miserably.

The God I believe in, if you want to go for the everyday world only exists in my beliefs.

There we go - thank you. This conversation ends here.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well what about Shimdoodleblarbinfarbs? What about those? They only exist in the "metaphysical" space also! A second-cousin of mine told me about them, and he has some sort of book also - well, to be honest it is really more of a pamphlet, that was given to him by his Dog, Rufus. Why aren't you going around, promoting them? You're trying to wriggle free from the damning position I have placed you in... but you're failing miserably.

There we go - thank you. This conversation ends here.

Well, I will still answer. I don't know what exists in the metaphysical sense.
That you do metaphysics differently than me seems obvious.

You win, I am in a damming position. Now do you feel better now?