Life From Dirt?

[Heyo]

I guess they can be real in the fact that one nation basically decides to go to war against another nation. As we see in Russia and Ukraine.

Nations don't go to war against another. People go to war because they believe in nations.

 

[Polymath257]

OK. I'm going to stick to my point as well, that chimps do not and have never written religious texts...

And neither did humans until fairly recently. So? All that shows is we got there first.

I like your comment though. ALTHOUGH I will say that the things written in the Bible about the Law that God gave Moses for the Israelites (which, by the way, they agreed to follow) is very detailed.

And to no good purpose.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm not a scientismist.



Not necessarily.
Believing something does not exist because we cannot see it is unreasonable.

Sight is only one way of detection. To not believe in something because there is NO way to detect it, even in theory, *is* reasonable.

No it does not mean that, it means that you have decided to not believe in god/s and think that is a rational path to follow.

Hmm...and it looks to me like you decided to believe in God and think that is a rational path to follow.

Now, what is the evidence and what does it show?

I guess someone has told you that and you believe it.

No. It is a matter of looking at how mistakes are made in our conclusions and trying to eliminate those. One huge mistake is believing in things that are not verifiable.

 

[Brian2]

I believe it is reasonable to only believe in those things that can actually be detected.

For example, I can definitely say there is not an adult elephant in my room. The reason I can say that is that I cannot detect it. That is how I know that something doesn't exist: that it is impossible to detect it.

If it is impossible for 'science' to detect something (meaning it is impossible to detect), then it simply doesn't exist. that is, in part, how the term 'exists' is defined.

If God is spirit and we cannot detect spirit or do not know if we have detected it or not, then not detecting does not mean that a spirit does not exist.

Tp 'go beyond reason' is, by definition, unreasonable.

Unreasonable is when you contradict the rules of reason.
I can make a reasonable choice that God exists, reasonable meaning that it is possible given everything we know.

If there was no time, it could not have been the 'beginning'. You cannot 'do' anything in timelessness: timelessness implies static, so there is no 'doing'.

Timelessness is something we probably have not experienced and so do not know what is possible.
Change happens over time however, but that is viewing time as a some sort of length.
God is changeless and maybe God can just be. God is all knowing and so maybe God can just know. God is everywhere and so does not have to go anywhere.
If time is associated with this universe then time began when God started creating the universe.

 

[Brian2]

I am not saying that our current ideas in science are the truth. In fact, I have little doubt they will be revised over time.

What I *am* saying is that something that is undetectable *even in theory* simply does not exist. That isn't a science question. It is simply a question of what it means to exist.

No it just means that we cannot detect it. Maybe it can communicate with us.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No it does not mean that, it means that you have decided to not believe in god/s and think that is a rational path to follow.

How would you prove that claim? It looks pretty bogus to me. When it comes to rational thought there is no choice in belief. I do not know of any atheists that chose not to believe. They lost their beliefs if they had them because they could see how irrational that they were. There was no choice in the action.

 

[Valjean]

Look, lets be honest with your viewpoint. You believe your great-great-++ lots more grandpap was a fish. Have a good one.

Why do you doubt it? I'll bet you can't explain why someone would believe that, ie: your making a claim about something you don't understand.

You don't know what religion is? ...take care...not too much more.

I had a whole course on religion in college. There are hundreds of psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists and believers with hundreds of different definitions or explanations. I have a whole textbook somewhere with nothing but different explanations of what religion is in it.
So don't be so dismissive. It's not so simple and clear cut as you seem to think it is.

I was asking for your, personal idea of religion, so I could properly address your question about its origins.

 

[Valjean]

OK. I'm going to stick to my point as well, that chimps do not and have never written religious texts... I like your comment though. ALTHOUGH I will say that the things written in the Bible about the Law that God gave Moses for the Israelites (which, by the way, they agreed to follow) is very detailed.

Most human religions don't have a religious text, either

 

[Valjean]

I'm not a scientismist.

Huh?

Not necessarily.
Believing something does not exist because we cannot see it is unreasonable.

Belief something does not exist is not the same as not believing it exists. One is a positive belief or assertion, the other simply a lack of belief. Lacking belief in something unevidenced is reasonable.

No it does not mean that, it means that you have decided to not believe in god/s and think that is a rational path to follow.

It means I have deferred a decision. My lack of belief is not a decision, it's the epistemic default, a blank slate.
Lack of or deferred belief is the reasonable default when no objective evidence exists.

I guess someone has told you that and you believe it.

How would you characterize it? Is lack of belief in something I have no evidence for not reasonable?

 

[Valjean]

No it just means that we cannot detect it. Maybe it can communicate with us.

No. It means existence is defined by detectability. Communication would confer detectability, therefore, existence.

 

[Brian2]

How would you prove that claim? It looks pretty bogus to me. When it comes to rational thought there is no choice in belief. I do not know of any atheists that chose not to believe. They lost their beliefs if they had them because they could see how irrational that they were. There was no choice in the action.

So are you saying that rational choice does not happen, everything we do is just happens automatically when a rational balance inside us tips in a certain direction? Or is this just something that happens with belief in God/s?
And if it happens with you then it might happen with believers also, who may just have more evidence on the pro side because they see things as evidence that you do not see as evidence.

 

[Brian2]

Belief something does not exist is not the same as not believing it exists. One is a positive belief or assertion, the other simply a lack of belief. Lacking belief in something unevidenced is reasonable.

Not believing in something just because we do not see it is not reasonable.
If there were absolutely no evidence you might have a point but there is evidence with you just need to deny.

It means I have deferred a decision. My lack of belief is not a decision, it's the epistemic default, a blank slate.
Lack of or deferred belief is the reasonable default when no objective evidence exists.

I suppose you don't defer a decision if you automatically fall one way or the other when the evidence is there or not.

How would you characterize it? Is lack of belief in something I have no evidence for not reasonable?

And belief in something I have evidence for is reasonable.

 

[Brian2]

No. It means existence is defined by detectability. Communication would confer detectability, therefore, existence.

So it's detectable to those it communicates with and who listen and talk back, and this would be the same with other spirits also.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So are you saying that rational choice does not happen, everything we do is just happens automatically when a rational balance inside us tips in a certain direction? Or is this just something that happens with belief in God/s?
And if it happens with you then it might happen with believers also, who may just have more evidence on the pro side because they see things as evidence that you do not see as evidence.

No, some of us can be rational. Some run away from rational thought.

By the way, there does not appear to be any reliable evidence on the pro-side. What I see is people that do not understand the concept of evidence trying desperately to find a rational reason to believe.

 

[Valjean]

Not believing in something just because we do not see it is not reasonable.
If there were absolutely no evidence you might have a point but there is evidence with you just need to deny.

I hear about this evidence every day, but I have yet to see anything rational, logical or convincing.

I suppose you don't defer a decision if you automatically fall one way or the other when the evidence is there or not.

I believe when there's sufficient evidence. I "automatically" defer belief in cases where there's no evidence. As for falling one way or the other regardless of evidence, I don't do that. I'm perfectly open to evidence.

And belief in something I have evidence for is reasonable.

OK. Not much controversy there.

 

[Valjean]

So it's detectable to those it communicates with and who listen and talk back, and this would be the same with other spirits also.

Sure. If you see/hear/smell/touch it that's evidence -- for you. But it's subjective evidence, and useless epistemically or in debate.
I could go into a mental hospital and find a dozen people who hear voices or see spirits, but none that could provide objective, tangible evidence for the reality of these hallucinations.

 

[Brian2]

No, some of us can be rational. Some run away from rational thought.

By the way, there does not appear to be any reliable evidence on the pro-side. What I see is people that do not understand the concept of evidence trying desperately to find a rational reason to believe.

Faith is faith and what you see is because of your concept of evidence and wanting people to convince you with your concept of evidence.
But no doubt some people start to feel that you and other skeptics must be right and that they are inferior if they have a belief in God.

 

[Heyo]

Faith is faith and what you see is because of your concept of evidence and wanting people to convince you with your concept of evidence.
But no doubt some people start to feel that you and other skeptics must be right and that they are inferior if they have a belief in God.

And there it is again, the fear to be inferior that makes believers desperately search for a rationalization of their beliefs. You are not inferior if you are not rational. Valuing rationality as superior to belief is a value judgement - your value judgement. Just get rid of that fear and start valuing your belief. Read your book, you'll find multiple passages that say that belief without evidence is superior to rationality.
And stop being greedy. You can't have it both. Belief or rationality, you have to decide.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And there it is again, the fear to be inferior that makes believers desperately search for a rationalization of their beliefs. You are not inferior if you are not rational. Valuing rationality as superior to belief is a value judgement - your value judgement. Just get rid of that fear and start valuing your belief. Read your book, you'll find multiple passages that say that belief without evidence is superior to rationality.
And stop being greedy. You can't have it both. Belief or rationality, you have to decide.

Well, I have learned to actively compartmentalize for different contexts.
I will use reason, logic and evidence, when it works and feelings/emotions/faith, when that works. And I don't care that I use different parts of my brain for different tasks and that it doesn't add up with coherence.

 

[Brian2]

And there it is again, the fear to be inferior that makes believers desperately search for a rationalization of their beliefs. You are not inferior if you are not rational. Valuing rationality as superior to belief is a value judgement - your value judgement. Just get rid of that fear and start valuing your belief. Read your book, you'll find multiple passages that say that belief without evidence is superior to rationality.
And stop being greedy. You can't have it both. Belief or rationality, you have to decide.

The value judgement is one from skepticism, which does not like religious faith and sees it as inferior to whatever faith the skeptic claims to have.
We can have it both ways, and do, but skeptics are the ones who say we don't.