Total posts: 7,093
-->
@Fallaneze
My main objection to your claim that some unverifiable god(s) provide the best explanation is that you have not explained what makes it better than any other of a myriad of alternative unverifiable hypotheses.
You said a naturalistic explanation would seem to be the most probable in the case of the existence of standing garages. My question then is why would the existence of the universe not most likely be explained naturalistically?
My main objection to your claim that belief in god(s) is "more rational" is the apparent double standard. Perhaps you could reconcile that for me but so far you have not done so to my satisfaction.
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
Allow me to elucidate. Your main objection to my faux claim of a garage spirit is not with my explanation but with the existence of alternative explanations which do not necessitate the existence of a being which is completely unverifiable. This is also one of my main objections to the actual claims of theists when using evidences like fine tuning or the very fact that the universe exists at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Oh I too get a variety of responses but the idea that I had the "right idea" but was on the "wrong track" tends to erk me especially and so it stands out in my experience. It's the idea that the experiences I had, which seemed very real and very convincing to me at the time, were somehow less profound than anyone else's experience.
Indeed to date no spiritual claim that i have been exposed too is provably different from my own in evidence level, only in content.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Because I was once a believer but not a conventional one I find that many believers of every stripe will try to convince me that I was right to have faith but simply chose the wrong things to have faith in and subsequently suggest that if I would only believe the things that they do I would find "true faith". Would I be incorrect in assuming that between the two of us this is not a shared experience?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
It sounds to me from your story that you went from never having seriously even thought about the issue directly to atheism whereas I was deeply spiritual (if not religious) for a number of years going so far as to believe that I had supernatural powers before examining my beliefs and deciding that the positive results of my "powers" were somewhat inconsistent.
Created:
-->
@Snoopy
Insufficient evidence is not enough evidence to support rational acceptance. You ate correct aboit belief however. No rationality is required though I truly hope to only believe in those things which are rationally justified.What is (in)sufficient evidence? Believing in something whether it be a rational concept or not, is not shown to be rational, so far as we are concerned.
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
How does this differ from using a standing universe as evidence for a being outside it? I fail to see the difference.Well how does a standing garage indicate the existence of a being who is holding it together? You haven't established that part.
Created:
-->
@Snoopy
If it us rational to believe in a god based on insufficient evidence then it is rational to believe in anything based on insufficient evidence. If on the other hand insufficient evidence does not warrant rational belief then believing in some god(s) based on insufficient evidence is irrational. I apologize if the use of the term equal has made this concept difficult for you to grasp.
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
If a spirit is holding up my garage my garage is standing then the two things are correlated in the same way that fine tuning correlates with the possible existence of some god(s). It is evidence insufficiently just like fine tuning. If you disagree please point out the logical flaw in my argument.
Created:
-->
@Snoopy
So believing in a garage spirit is equally rational to believing in god(s) then.
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
My garage standing is evidence just not sufficient evidence. Please explain the real difference here.
Created:
-->
@Snoopy
What is the difference between this belief and a belief in god(s)
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
I am unaware of any evidence for any god(s) other than testimonial and I have just given you testimonial evidence of the garage spirit by telling you about it.
As for speculation well it is just speculation. You do not know that there is a spirit realm or how interesting any part of it would be. In any case the garage spirit seems content there as he continues holding up my garage without complaint.
Is not the miracle of the standing garage enough?
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
What precisely makes belief in god(s) more rational than a garage spirit? Just because you "think" they would have better things to do? Claerly they don't or my garage would fall over. Seems as rational as a belief in any entity/conciousness/being that we have no direct observable evidence of to me.
Created:
-->
@Snoopy
Ok so is it ir isn't it?
Created:
-->
@Snoopy
Do you feel that is more or less rational than the idea of a garage spirit? And is it more or less rational to believe in one or both of these spirits than to believe in some god(s)?
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
I'm not sure what it is, just as you are not sure what the god(s) you are proposing are. It is an invisible formless spirit that keeps my garage from collapsing. It has attributes such as preserving garages and being undetectable.
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
Not a dragon then just a garage spirit.
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
Then the problem is with my examples not my premise. How about the invisible undetectable dragon whose breath is holding up my garage? Do you believe in that? The evidence of course being that my garage has not fallen in.
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
Universe creating pixies wpuld exist outside of the physical universe of course and leprechauns are invisible. Clearly we would not expect any evidence of them (beyond the existence of the universe itself of course in the case of the pixies) so if no evidence is what we would expect and no evidence is what we see hiw is thus functionally different from believing in any god(s) for whom we would expect to find no evidence of?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
I wish my story was that rational, lol. So what caused you to examine your beliefs like that?
Honestly there is no simple answer to that but I will say when my faith began to slip I read the entire bible cover to cover trying to save it (though I was not a christian I had been taight to respect the bible) and then again wondering why I had bothered tryingvto save it and by the time I had completed this process I was an atheist.
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
Do you have such a reason?Yes, you do need a reason for believing that universe creating pixies do not exist.
No, I disbelieve in the existence of leprechauns.
And what reason do you have to disbelieve in leprechauns?
Do you listen to "the atheist experience"?
I do.
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
Do you need a reason to believe that universe creating pixies do not exist? Do you neither believe nor disbelieve in leprechauns? I have a hunch that your default position in most undetermined cases is skepticism and that the only thing you "need a reason to believe doesn't exist" is in the case of god(s).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
I'm not sure if I can pinpoint the moment when I became an atheist but I can tell you the cause. I examined my beliefs to see if the were rationally justified. They were not.
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
The real question is whether or not it is rational to believe that they do. One needs a reason to believe something not the other way around.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
As I said manufactured dependence. And since you are proclaiming rather than discussing again that is probably all I have to say to ypu on the subject.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
When I do what I consider to be right it is not for wages or for fear of punishment nor for any god(s) but for the sake of other human beings.
That is the category of responsible adult which is what a real father wants for his children. It is only demagogues and tyrants that want eternal dependence. Or more accurately the illusion of dependence. Generally speaking this dependence is manufactured rather than genuine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Beliefs are not a choice they are a realization. Beliefs can be changed but the believer does not change them exposure to new ideas does.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Indoctrination. By being told that a true believer does not need proof and that scientific knowledge is inferior to faith until he really believed it.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
I'm sure he will be along soon to tell us we do not understand and are mischaracterizing his argument while at the same time offering no actual clarification of how it should be characterized.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
I noticed he used "as a child" as though that were synonymous with good. In truth children are selfish self absorbed and cruel as often as not. They lack empathy and have an incomplete ethical framework. It is not until we are taught about the social contract and develops empathy that we become descent human beings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
He simply has two interchangeable definitions for god which he is unable or unwilling to separate in his mind (or at least in his arguments).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Unless you think one of us is going to spontaneously reverse our position you must know that engaging will inevitably lead to disagreement. While I'm not sure if I would label a simple intellectual disagreement strife you have certainly given the impression that you consider it so.Quarreling for the sake of strife is the type of debate that is sinful.
That being the case any and every time you engage me in these discussions you either are doing it for the sake of strife or you have unrealistic expectations.
I am inclined to believe that you simply have unrealistic expectations but either way it does seem to incline you towards behaviorsthat you yourself have labeled unchristian.
So unless you have some way of quantifying the difference between a "true christian" that is behaving in an "unchristian" way then behavior cannot be used as a measure of "christianness".
I fully expect you to reply and I fully expect that reply to contain no sufficient method of separating "true christians" doing "unchristian" things and "false christians" if that is the case. If you make a reply to this post and it does not contain such a formula which is not simply a matter of subjective opinion then do not expect any reply.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Careful Mopac thay seems almost like an attempt at debate and you said debate is unchristian. Maybe your not a real Christian.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I see no reason to think he has ever actually pays attention. He will however, if the past is any indicator, keep posting as long as you do with no regard for the content of your argument.I am not paying attention to you anymore, as you are obvious not listening, simply being argumentative.Give up on trying to explain your side and expect me to simply believe what you said without explanation or evidence is too much for me. My way of doing things has worked and you haven't convinced me your way of doing things works.
He can't stand to give other people the last word. Must be against his religion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@K_Michael
My favorite bird at the moment is chicken. They are delicious... of course I havent tried them all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Should Torquemada the grand inquisiter of the Spanish inquisition have been considered a Christian? His policies where brutal and unforgiving in a way the trump administration has yet to match and yet the church supported him and his right to dispense "justice".
I think you may be engaged in a no true Scotsman fallacy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I'm pretty sure we are both fools or we.would.have stopped this.nonsense like a dozen posts back.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
So we both agree this conversation is going nowhere?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You have called me a wicked idiot worthy of ridicule and I'm being haughty? Haughty does not even begin to describe your behavior.
Now rigorously define ultimate reality or get off the stage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You can't tell me what your talking about. Maybe that makes us even.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Rigorously define ultimate reality or get off the stage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Rigorously define ultimate reality or get off the stage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Are you asking for objective certainty on the subject or only if I accept my own existence?
Because objective certainty might be beyond human beings but I'm accept my own existence as based on my perceptions
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Rigorously define ultimate reality or get off the stage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You answer the question. I'm tired of being the only one answering questions in our relationship. Rigorously define ultimate reality or get off the stage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It is one possible rebuttal.I meant to say the rebuttal to Pascal's wager.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You are maiing absurd requiremwnts for answering this question.
Not at all if I asked you if you believe in Oiuljakta you would probably need to know what that is before you could answer the question.
Anyway I have a hunch what you actually believe in is the concept of ultimate reality which has nothing to do with actual reality since it is just a concept. I very much doubt that humans could comprehend the ultimate reality so we really are incapable of believing in it. Unless of course we arecl talking about different things when we say ultimate reality which would only make my point that a rigorous definition is necessary to hold an intelligent discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Your asking me if I believe in something you have not even described. I cannot answer you until you describe it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
If you want to continue this discuss you will need a rigorous definition of ultimate reality that is not self referential or circular. Do you have one or not?
Created: