What If You're Wrong

[Subduction Zone]

Skepticism is okay, but if you dis-believe in God it's like saying you want to kill Him. Religion has an important role in nature, God is Heaven, Heaven is nature but doesnt "exclude" science, only "apprehension," the nature of temptation.

No, I am sorry but that is ridiculous. Now it might mean that some may want to "kill" your version of God, but atheism for the most part is not anti-God. It is simply recognizing the fact that there is no reliable evidence for a God. Why believe in something not supported by evidence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

but the Biblical one is not fooled, Subduc. I don't think that the Bible God is a construct or impossible and I don't think He has flaws.

Many Christians seem to believe that. If you ever used Pascal's Wager yourself you were claiming that it is possible to fool God, That was my point. Do you understand that? Pascal's Wager is an argument that fails on several levels. And we know what you believe. you should try to demonstrate what you know. Belief on its own is of little merit.

 

[Bear Wild]

thanks for asking.
While the Bible is clear that nothing is impossible for God (Matthew 19:26)... it might also be possible for God to restrict himself, I think.
And that's what he did for creation, I suppose. I suppose he cannot construct the square triangle, because one of the creation rules for this creation is saying that triangles have three and not four corners.

What would the purpose for god to restrict himself and allow people to suffer?

 

[Bear Wild]

but the Biblical one is not fooled, Subduc. I don't think that the Bible God is a construct or impossible and I don't think He has flaws.

But the bible is full of flaws. If god does not have flaws then why would a god create a "flawed" world with death and suffering to gods creation. Why create a world in which god does not present him/herself to gods creation to give them direction. The god of the bible has many flaws.

 

[viole]

One of the assumptions non believers naturally bring (can't help it) to thinking about God is to quite reasonably just assume (most everyone has) that death is real -- that the death of this mortal body is a final end, a real death.

But that's only a form of just assuming God does not exist.

The assumption about death though is so basic and so natural that it takes some real thought to discover how one incorporates the assumption into various topics around talking about God, such as you just did re "i could equally prove (an evil) God because of kids cancer and such".

Of course if God existed and then just let everyone die a final real death without saving at minimum the innocents (even before one addresses how he might redeem and change and save the guilty), such a God that let everyone just die would indeed be extremely evil (at least by any normal human point of view), in that imagined scenario.

But it's just an imagined scenario, since by definition God is -- from the start -- something that transcends the appearance, makes death an illusion, and so on.

Just from the start, by definition.

Why bother to stay with a notion of "God" which is trivially wrong, and then try to use it to think about a possible transcendent God? (It's presuming your conclusion, before you even start, basically)

I am not sure what your point is.
Thomas said: look at those cool things, are they not evidence of God?

to which I replied: look at those ugly things, are they not counter evidence of God?

My point being: makes no sense to use evidence of the cool things to prove God, while having a priori explanation for the bad things. Especially if those explanation involve a theology mapped around the very being intended to be proved.

basically, everybody could prove anything using that sort of reasoning.

so?

what atheists like me disbelieve is quite simple. And does not deserve further complicated philosophy. We do not believe your God, because we do not believe Mother Goose. And that is because both your god and Mother goose share the same evidence, and therefore the same ontological status.

ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Actually there was the beauty in nature we talked about.
For others, there are instances of illness that, for them, point to another God.
So we had beauty and illness.

This isn't just anything. It was a) and b).
If it's a) and b), make your choice which hypothesis to believe in more, both of them pointing to Gods. That's what I call Pascal Wager situation.

Thomas

Beauty is in the eye of the observer. I see nothing beautiful in kids dying of bone cancer when they are one, for instance.

And I believe that kids get cancer because nature is amoral and unguided, and not because there is another god into illnesses. Too complicated, when the no god explanation is vastly more parsimonious.

Ciao

- viole

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If we are wrong about the creator if there is one... it's like being wrong about the host of where we are invited. It does matter.

No more than it would matter if Ragnarok was about to happen, or if Zeus was displeased with our lack of worship of him.

 

[MonkeyFire]

No, I am sorry but that is ridiculous. Now it might mean that some may want to "kill" your version of God, but atheism for the most part is not anti-God. It is simply recognizing the fact that there is no reliable evidence for a God. Why believe in something not supported by evidence?

Why would I need science where if I were omniscient I would not require proving.

 

[Skywalker]

Here is a popular video featuring Richard Dawkins which has almost 60 000 likes:

I know, many atheists here don't agree with Richard Dawkins.

Anyway, since thousands of Youtube likes speak a clear language, I thought I could make it a thread.

Whan asked what if he is wrong with the Christian God, he replied we could all be wrong about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, for instance. Or about the great Juju at the bottom of the sea.

In my opinion, that didn't answer the question.

If we are wrong about the creator if there is one... it's like being wrong about the host of where we are invited. It does matter.

Please note there was a quite similar thread recently: why is it important to "Believe"..?, it was focused more on salvation, if I understood it right.

If I'm wrong then I have nothing to lose. I would rather live my life as if Jesus is real and him not be real than live as if he isn't real and he is.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Here is a popular video featuring Richard Dawkins which has almost 60 000 likes:

I know, many atheists here don't agree with Richard Dawkins.

Anyway, since thousands of Youtube likes speak a clear language, I thought I could make it a thread.

Whan asked what if he is wrong with the Christian God, he replied we could all be wrong about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, for instance. Or about the great Juju at the bottom of the sea.

In my opinion, that didn't answer the question.

If we are wrong about the creator if there is one... it's like being wrong about the host of where we are invited. It does matter.

Please note there was a quite similar thread recently: why is it important to "Believe"..?, it was focused more on salvation, if I understood it right.

I thought Dawkins made an important point that for many us, our beliefs are conditional to a large extent to the culture we are brought up in. Clearly no one could be expected to become a Christian unless they had had sufficient exposure to Christianity through their upbringing.

I also find the whole Christian- atheist debate wearisome as it's often assumed being a Christian or atheist are the only valid options in regards belief. That's simply not true for many of us.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Actually a skeptic follows the evidence, and you may not understand the concept. It is well defined in the sciences and there is evidence for reality.

No, it is an unprovable axiomatic cognitive assumption. In other words it is a belief:
"Naturalism's axiomatic assumptions[edit]
All scientific study inescapably builds on at least some essential assumptions that are untested by scientific processes.[43][44] Kuhn concurs that all science is based on an approved agenda of unprovable assumptions about the character of the universe, rather than merely on empirical facts. These assumptions—a paradigm—comprise a collection of beliefs, values and techniques that are held by a given scientific community, which legitimize their systems and set the limitations to their investigation.[45] For naturalists, nature is the only reality, the only paradigm. There is no such thing as 'supernatural'. The scientific method is to be used to investigate all reality.[46]

Naturalism is the implicit philosophy of working scientists.[47] The following basic assumptions are needed to justify the scientific method.[48]

1. that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers.[48][49] "The basis for rationality is acceptance of an external objective reality."[50] "Objective reality is clearly an essential thing if we are to develop a meaningful perspective of the world. Nevertheless its very existence is assumed." "Our belief that objective reality exist is an assumption that it arises from a real world outside of ourselves. As infants we made this assumption unconsciously. People are happy to make this assumption that adds meaning to our sensations and feelings, than live with solipsism."[51] Without this assumption, there would be only the thoughts and images in our own mind (which would be the only existing mind) and there would be no need of science, or anything else."[52]
2. ..."

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

Evidence is a belief system, that apparently works.
Now I do believe, that objective reality is real, but that is a belief.

Learn to be skeptical of the cognitive abstract concepts of evidence and reality. They are both ideas in the mind, which seems to work and then be honest as state that.
There is no absolute truth. That is not absolute, it is a conditional, based on the assumption that no human is God. In principle the only being, who has absolute knowledge and thus truth.

Now you are a scientific skeptic, who doesn't doubt reality, science and evidence. I am a general strong skeptic and I only have beliefs, which apparently works.
We are just not the same kind of skeptics. You are a local/limited skeptic, I am an universal/general one.

So as far as skepticism goes, we simply believe differently and apparently you believe that you don't have fundamental beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it is an unprovable axiomatic cognitive assumption. In other words it is a belief:
"Naturalism's axiomatic assumptions[edit]
All scientific study inescapably builds on at least some essential assumptions that are untested by scientific processes.[43][44] Kuhn concurs that all science is based on an approved agenda of unprovable assumptions about the character of the universe, rather than merely on empirical facts. These assumptions—a paradigm—comprise a collection of beliefs, values and techniques that are held by a given scientific community, which legitimize their systems and set the limitations to their investigation.[45] For naturalists, nature is the only reality, the only paradigm. There is no such thing as 'supernatural'. The scientific method is to be used to investigate all reality.[46]

Naturalism is the implicit philosophy of working scientists.[47] The following basic assumptions are needed to justify the scientific method.[48]

1. that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers.[48][49] "The basis for rationality is acceptance of an external objective reality."[50] "Objective reality is clearly an essential thing if we are to develop a meaningful perspective of the world. Nevertheless its very existence is assumed." "Our belief that objective reality exist is an assumption that it arises from a real world outside of ourselves. As infants we made this assumption unconsciously. People are happy to make this assumption that adds meaning to our sensations and feelings, than live with solipsism."[51] Without this assumption, there would be only the thoughts and images in our own mind (which would be the only existing mind) and there would be no need of science, or anything else."[52]
2. ..."

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

Evidence is a belief system, that apparently works.
Now I do believe, that objective reality is real, but that is a belief.

Learn to be skeptical of the cognitive abstract concepts of evidence and reality. They are both ideas in the mind, which seems to work and then be honest as state that.
There is no absolute truth. That is not absolute, it is a conditional, based on the assumption that no human is God. In principle the only being, who has absolute knowledge and thus truth.

Now you are a scientific skeptic, who doesn't doubt reality, science and evidence. I am a general strong skeptic and I only have beliefs, which apparently works.
We are just not the same kind of skeptics. You are a local/limited skeptic, I am an universal/general one.

So as far as skepticism goes, we simply believe differently and apparently you believe that you don't have fundamental beliefs.

I am sorry but you do not get to redefine terminology just because it is inconvenient. Evidence as a concept is well defined and even your articles confirm its existence.

And since you do not follow the evidence it is improper to claim that you are a skeptic. You might want to find a new term.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am sorry but you do not get to redefine terminology just because it is inconvenient. Evidence as a concept is well defined and even your articles confirm its existence.

And since you do not follow the evidence it is improper to claim that you are a skeptic. You might want to find a new term.

Definition of SKEPTICISM
"1: an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object"

You are a particular skeptic. I am a general one.

Skepticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

You are a scientific skeptic. I am a philosophical one.

Now the bold claim in your quote, is without evidence, as it is normative/moral claim.
You can't observe improper as you can't see it and it has no objective referent. It is a mental concept and not a physical one.
You can't see, hold or otherwise interact with improper as you can with say a stone, a piece of rock. Further there are no scientific instrument, which can measure improper.

You have to learn the connection between this: https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12 and improper.

 

[thomas t]

If you ever used Pascal's Wager yourself you were claiming that it is possible to fool God, That was my point.

I disagree, but thanks for the civil tone.
ah wait, you gave reasons before, you said if you adhere to the wrong version of God, then it's even worse.
Well we have the Bible. At least for the Bible God, it's clear what is meant, in my opinion. Also, I think the Bible God is not immoral.
You went on:

Of course the main problem with Pascal's wager is that it ignores the fact that belief is not voluntary for a rational thinker. I cannot force myself to believe that horses can sprout wings and fly no matter how many myths about Pegasus that I read. The same applies to the existence of a god.

True.
But you can make a decision about which priorities you set for yourself in your life.
You could say: Ok, I make a stop here, take one year off to search God.
Accidentally, that's what I did in my life. I went to a humantarian aid organisation comprised of Christians only. That was a nice little organisation. They preached the Gospel to me, I converted and I am happy now. This was 18 years past.
It was the best decision I think I could have taken in my life and I praise God for it.

I actually wagered similarly to the way Pascal did: I said to myself: either God is good, then I wagered right.
Or God is unjust and - in this case - I don't care because God's judgement would be unjust anyway.

That's how I made up my mind before conversion, and it worked out for me.
If it worked for me, why shouldn't it work for others, as well, I'm asking myself.
My life used to be in ruins - I had much psychological trouble, before. But now I feel healthy for many years now and I thank God for that!

Thomas

 

[thomas t]

What would the purpose for god to restrict himself and allow people to suffer?

I don't know.
I don't know.
I'm not God.

If god does not have flaws then why would a god create a "flawed" world with death and suffering to gods creation.

Is every soccer match that ends after 90 minutes flawed? No it is not. So why blame God for having created a limited existence on earth for human beings.

Now I'd like to get to Viole, who argues simlilarly..

BTW; another poster made the same point about a hiding God as you do, I answered it in #133.

 

[thomas t]

Beauty is in the eye of the observer.

Yes of course. When I would want to make you a present I would ask somebody before, which flowers you like. There is no point in giving you tulips if you detest them....

And I believe that kids get cancer because nature is amoral and unguided, and not because there is another god into illnesses. Too complicated, when the no god explanation is vastly more parsimonious.

yes it's very parsimonious. Here we agree.
However, the beauty on earth is a different phenomenon. Any no God explanation is zero parsimonious there, in my view.

So we have nature + God added the beauty. This what I call nice evidence for a loving Creator.



And... what does beauty have to do with Mother Goose, is that one loving, too?

 

[Audie]

I am sorry but you do not get to redefine terminology just because it is inconvenient. Evidence as a concept is well defined and even your articles confirm its existence.

And since you do not follow the evidence it is improper to claim that you are a skeptic. You might want to find a new term.

We'd call for suggestions but ...

 

[PureX]

I am sorry but you do not get to redefine terminology just because it is inconvenient. Evidence as a concept is well defined and even your articles confirm its existence.

And since you do not follow the evidence it is improper to claim that you are a skeptic. You might want to find a new term.

It seems to me that the point he was making is that 'scientific evidence' is a subjectively derived criteria based a naturalist's truth paradigm (that reality is physicality and everything else is just fantasy). Which is basically "scientism" in a nutshell, of which there are many proponents here on RF.

 

[Bear Wild]

I don't know.
I don't know.
I'm not God.

Is every soccer match that ends after 90 minutes flawed? No it is not. So why blame God for having created a limited existence on earth for human beings.

Now I'd like to get to Viole, who argues simlilarly..

BTW; another poster made the same point about a hiding God as you do, I answered it in #133.

So this god that is not flawed designed suffering into the world on purpose? This god only communicated to a single group of people early on and then ignored all of the other people of the world?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I disagree, but thanks for the civil tone.
ah wait, you gave reasons before, you said if you adhere to the wrong version of God, then it's even worse.
Well we have the Bible. At least for the Bible God, it's clear what is meant, in my opinion. Also, I think the Bible God is not immoral.
You went on:

You did not read it quite correctly, but close enough for now. The argument fails. And you have the problem that most Christians do of picking and choosing when it comes to the Bible. And closing your eyes to the obvious evil nature of the God of the Bible. You are willing to forgive any evil because of your indoctrination.

True.
But you can make a decision about which priorities you set for yourself in your life.
You could say: Ok, I make a stop here, take one year off to search God.
Accidentally, that's what I did in my life. I went to a humantarian aid organisation comprised of Christians only. That was a nice little organisation. They preached the Gospel to me, I converted and I am happy now. This was 18 years past.
It was the best decision I think I could have taken in my life and I praise God for it.

It sounds as if you got brainwashed in the process. You may be happier, but your reason for happiness does not appear to be based on sound theology.

I actually wagered similarly to the way Pascal did: I said to myself: either God is good, then I wagered right.
Or God is unjust and - in this case - I don't care because God's judgement would be unjust anyway.

How about using your reasoning to determine if God is just or unjust. One can still be a Christian and not believe all of the Bible (which you almost certainly do not at any rate). It is an error to make a false idol of the Bible which far too many Christians do.

That's how I made up my mind before conversion, and it worked out for me.
If it worked for me, why shouldn't it work for others, as well, I'm asking myself.
My life used to be in ruins - I had much psychological trouble, before. But now I feel healthy for many years now and I thank God for that!

Thomas

It sounds more like justification of doing what you wanted to do. But whatever works for you.