Hello from Worldquest

[Worldquest]

Hello people. I'm Worldquest and I'm what you might call a christian (well not so much these days) hippy spiritualist type person. Pretty open minded really. I'm a musician too, with some pretty damn funky music under my belt. I've been to Stonehenge and Avebury in England and felt the vibes, seen the sun set, that sort of thing. Yep, that's it for now.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Welcome to the forum. There is a introduce yourself section in the general discussion, you didn't had to do this here. But ok..
I hope your experience here will be an elighten one.

 

[Gnug215]

Hi there christian hippie spiritualist type person.

Seeing as your post seemed to be entirely introductory in nature, I decided to move it here, to the "Introduce yourself!" forum.

Nice to meet you! And I hope you enjoy your stay.
People around here are often quite direct in their questions and arguments, so beware of that.

We also have a chatroom, btw, if you're interested.

Welcome to the boards!

 

[Worldquest]

Ooops. Yes I should have done this in the intro section to begin with. I've noticed the directness and I'm ok with it. I'm usually direct with people myself but I'm going to keep it quite calm here as this is your place. If I have a question I will ask, but mostly it will be just to learn about your "beliefs" rather than challenge them. I wouldn't want you all to jump on me. Unless you're all female.

 

[monitoradiation]

Woo, you also haz sense of humor. Nicely done.

Welcome to the boards! We don't have many christians and hippies around here.

 

[Gnug215]

Ooops. Yes I should have done this in the intro section to begin with. I've noticed the directness and I'm ok with it. I'm usually direct with people myself but I'm going to keep it quite calm here as this is your place. If I have a question I will ask, but mostly it will be just to learn about your "beliefs" rather than challenge them. I wouldn't want you all to jump on me. Unless you're all female.

Hehe, awareness AND a sense of humor. You'll be alright, methinks.

But sure, I think most of us like questions. Fire away!
I think most have an aversion to assumptions, though. I'm sure you can imagine that.

We should have some examples around here to show what people don't like. I think you'll see what I mean.

 

[Worldquest]

I do have a few questions which always baffle me. I believe in god and that's only because I'm personally convinced and not because I've "seen" anything as such. Atheists, unless I've been reading it wrong, don't believe in god because they (you) aren't convinced that there's any evidence.

My questions are :

1 - Have you ever sought evidence yourself, without being prompted to?

2 - What kind of evidence did (or would you, if you haven't yet) you seek?

3 - Why do you rely on external evidence (people showing you) rather than relying on personal experience?

4 - Is not personally accepting external evidence the same as personal experience? After all, "seeing" and "accepting" are experiences, aren't they?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I do have a few questions which always baffle me. I believe in god and that's only because I'm personally convinced and not because I've "seen" anything as such. Atheists, unless I've been reading it wrong, don't believe in god because they (you) aren't convinced that there's any evidence.

My questions are :

1 - Have you ever sought evidence yourself, without being prompted to?

2 - What kind of evidence did (or would you, if you haven't yet) you seek?

3 - Why do you rely on external evidence (people showing you) rather than relying on personal experience?

4 - Is not personally accepting external evidence the same as personal experience? After all, "seeing" and "accepting" are experiences, aren't they?

I can answer all this, but I would find it to be more apropriate if you had made it on a new post (in religio/irelegion section). Because other people can post you their own opinions rather then to having the few ones who just happen to check this section once in a while (many people don't do that), and I am prety sure that this will generate a discussion and you are likely not be fully satisfied with your first answers.
But if you don't feel to confortable on making this more public let me know and I will do it here.

 

[Worldquest]

Ok, yes go ahead.

 

[monitoradiation]

I do have a few questions which always baffle me. I believe in god and that's only because I'm personally convinced and not because I've "seen" anything as such. Atheists, unless I've been reading it wrong, don't believe in god because they (you) aren't convinced that there's any evidence.

There are many, many types of god claims. For each of them, the god must be fully defined. Before they are defined, there is no use looking for evidence.

For example, a god that is perfectly just and perfectly merciful cannot exist simply by definition because mercy is necessarily a suspension of justice. For gods whose definitions are logically self-contradictory I don't seek evidence at all, because the nature of their definition excludes their existence.

For gods that have a logically consistent definition, usually they boil down to personifying or anthromorphizing natural phenomena that does not require the supernatural and are imposed by those who wish for it to be true.

Furthermore, depending on the definition of the god in question, there can be circumstantial counter-evidence by consequence that the god, as defined, does not exist. For example: There is no logical contradiction in defining a god who is perfect who also created man. However, such a being should not have created man who are obviously flawed.

Based on the above, I would have to say that I have not accepted any of the god-claims because

1) Logical inconsistencies;
2) Insufficient evidence;
3) Evidence to the contrary.

1 - Have you ever sought evidence yourself, without being prompted to?

For which god-claim? If you're talking about the judeochristian god, yes and no. I presume that you're talking about the judeochristian god based on its prevalence in the society in which I assume you hail from. Correct me if I'm wrong.

If the definition of your judeochristian god is a maximally-great being, one that is perfectly just, perfectly merciful, perfect in every way conceivable, it is logically contradictory as aforementioned.

If the definition of your judeochristian god, and its evidence comes from the bible, then I reject it as both insufficient and contradictory.

If the definition of your judeochristian god is one that has the power to convince me, and indeed WANTS me to be convinced, but has failed to do so, for over two decade, then this is contradictory evidence to me.

This is what it boils down to. Tell me your definition of what god is, and I'll tell you whether or not I accept your claim.

2 - What kind of evidence did (or would you, if you haven't yet) you seek?

Present your claim first, and then I'll ask you what you need in order to convince me. I do not go out and blindly seek evidence without knowing what I'm supposed to be looking for.

3 - Why do you rely on external evidence (people showing you) rather than relying on personal experience?

This is a false assumption that personal evidence does not matter to me. It does, but OTHER PEOPLE'S personal experience will not convince me simply because I haven't had the same personal experiences that they have had. If one day I have a personal experience, that is something I will consider.

Again. Looking for personal experience, and then finding it, is not only foolish in the way of validating your own assumptions, but is potentially dangerous. If someone told me that their near-death experiences are evidence of the supernatural, I can do one of three things:

1) Accept their claim that the supernatural exists based on their testimony;
2) Explain to them why natural phenomena like NDE's do not count as supernatural;
3) Go and "experience" NDE's and maybe accidentally die.

4 - Is not personally accepting external evidence the same as personal experience? After all, "seeing" and "accepting" are experiences, aren't they?

No - why would you even say that? One is a conscious decision to accept a claim, one is the actual evidence. You can argue that the act of acceptance is an experience, but it's got nothing to do with the kind of experience you're talking about.

If you were in a desert and are out of water, then someone told you how they once drank 4 liters of water and you believed them, is that the same as you drinking 4 liters of water? All you got out of that exchange was the acceptance of their claim of them having drank the water. You, yourself, never got the experience of drinking that water.

 

[Gnug215]

I do have a few questions which always baffle me. I believe in god and that's only because I'm personally convinced and not because I've "seen" anything as such. Atheists, unless I've been reading it wrong, don't believe in god because they (you) aren't convinced that there's any evidence.

My questions are :

1 - Have you ever sought evidence yourself, without being prompted to?

2 - What kind of evidence did (or would you, if you haven't yet) you seek?

3 - Why do you rely on external evidence (people showing you) rather than relying on personal experience?

4 - Is not personally accepting external evidence the same as personal experience? After all, "seeing" and "accepting" are experiences, aren't they?

Hi Worldquest!

Before I start, you should know that I'm an ex-Christian, and that I don't consider myself an atheist now - more like a non-theist, non-believer, agnostic to the question...

1: I've never really sought evidence; not for my position as a Christian, or my current position. I just took in information and experience I came across and it's let me to where I am now.

2: I'm pretty much still abiding by the abovementioned approach. I can, however, seek out evidence and information about claims being made against my current position - that usually entails creationist claims against evolution/cosmology/science in general.

3: Personal experience means a lot to me, but not on all areas. I perceived knowledge and science to be sort of outside the realm of personal experience, whereas things such as taste in food, music, movies, etc. are entirely my own. I make that distinction consciously, and I think it is a good one.

4: I don't think that is the case, and I would say that my response to question 3 demonstrates fairly well why I think that is.
In addition to this, while I think you bring up an interesting point in question 3 and 4, I feel that I've had amply shown what the human psyche can do. I attribute religiosity to the human psyche, as well as many other things, and while I don't think that necessarily diminshes the actual value of these things, I do think it affects the truth value of them.
Religion, to me, falls under a category that one somewhat negatively (although I don't think that's entirely the case) could call 'wishful thinking' within the whole human experience, and while wishful thinking usually isn't based in truth, the experience itself may indeed be a positive one.


I hope you find those answers satisfactory, even though I probably wasn't able to answer them as directly as you might have hoped. If you want elaboration feel free to ask.

Oh, and if you want more responses to your questions, I recommend making a post in another section of the forum.
(But it's fine that we continue this thread in here.)

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

1 - Have you ever sought evidence yourself, without being prompted to?

I do that all the time, to be able to explain a certain phenomena or how to solve a certain problem, I as a engineering student was trained to do that sort of thing, I have spend several nights in blank think on problems, how to demonstrate that stuff works or doesn't, what makes good evidence, what are the issues with it and so forth. But what I think you rather mean is religious evidence, evidence for God. Of course that as well, I was raised a christian and I didn't became an athiest from night to day, waking up in the morning and deciding that you are now an atheist after being a firm believer for so long just doesn't happen. And it was mainly because I was searching for evidency that most contributed for my deconversion, because I did not found what I was expecting to find but instead I found what I was not expecting to find.

2 - What kind of evidence did (or would you, if you haven't yet) you seek?

I find this question particularly inadequated because it assumes that we are looking for one particular evidence, I will accept any evidence as long as it is good and well constructed (i.e. that the conclusion must necessarilly follow from the findings), I can say that I would be convinced if you find an evidence A but it wouldn't really do anything, not only because 1 piece of evidence alone is not enough to establish a case but also beause there isn't anything to say that I wouldn't be convinced by an evidence B that I have never taught of (which is generaly how the majority of things works). If I was expecting for an evidence A that I know I wouldn't be stading here expecting someone to present it to me, I would be out there looking for it, and if i didn't had it right now is because I haven't find and probably that such evidence isn't there. I very often see people making the mistake of thinking that they have solved an extremely complicated problem with their simple solution (eding out they have done a terrible mistake), if it was that simple someone else would have taught of that already years ago.

3 - Why do you rely on external evidence (people showing you) rather than relying on personal experience?

The answer to this depends of what do you mean with "personal experience" and "other people showing you".
If you mean "other people sowing me" by "giving me the answer without justification then no", if for instance a teacher of mechanics says "this particular problem as this interesting solution" without any justification the first thing that I would ask would be "why?", but on the other hand if you mean "showing" as in "allowing other people to demonstrate their conclusions step by step justifying every step of it", then the answer is yes. If you mean personal experience by "having done the actual work instead of trusting someone else telling me about it", then in that case I relly on personal experience, but if you mean "personal experience" as in a "gut feeling or any an experience where you haven't removed yourself from" (your preconcieved ideas, your subjective personal opinions), then I don't.

4 - Is not personally accepting external evidence the same as personal experience? After all, "seeing" and "accepting" are experiences, aren't they?

In the context of this question I will assume personal expereince to mean your subjective interpretation or a gut feeling, in that case No. Almost anyone in this forum will be able to tell you that personal experience isn't evidence of anything at all, because the result of it is what you believe it should be and not what they really are, while "external evidence" just "are" and the explenation for it is what differs.
And "seeing" and "accepting" are and are not experiences, expereinces must experiment something, must try, it means that you don't know what the answer will be until it actualy happens and so seeing is an experience, but accepting isn't an experience because acepting implicates that you already have your ideas formed and so you are not geting any new information.

 

[Worldquest]

Wow, I wasn't expecting so many responses. Hopefully the following addresses most of what everyone has said.

Monitoradiation, here are my thoughts on what you've said :

It's important to you that god is defined fully before looking for evidence. The problem I have with that is that god, if there's a god, isn't something that we'd have the capacity to fully define. I mean, can you even define, say, a football, fully? Sure, you can give definitions that mean something to you, and which you have the capacity to comprehend. All you have to say to qualify a football as something that one would seek evidence for is say : it's round (we all know what that means), it bounces, you can kick it, it's a certain size, it gets used in a game called football (we know what that means), etc. But what about the processes involved in making the football? And so on. If you think about it, we could make a list of things about a football which would go well beyond what you'd need to know before you know what you're looking for. It's probably infinite, or certainly huge. Usually, round / bouncy / a certain size plus amaybe a couple of other things is all we need. So with god, if you want a full definition you're probably never going to have one, just like you can't have a full definition of anything else. It comes down to what things mean to us and whether or not we understand what they are supposed to be. So I don't think you need a full list. Just the basics, at least to begin with, ie a creator.

I'm sure you could define mercy as part of the process of justice. For example, not punishing someone who kills another person (even though technically it's illegal and punishable) if their reasons are considered understandable (ie they were defending themselves, or temporary "insanity"). I think maybe you're thinking of justice as just letting someone off if you favour them (or maybe not, you tell me).

Self contradictory definitions. Again I think that's a matter of understanding. I have a saying, which goes : sometimes you have to be vague to be accurate. I'll leave it to you to say if you know what I mean by that.

I know what you mean about personifying things that occur naturally. And I understand about wishful thinking. But that doesn't mean that god doesn't exist.

I have a problem with what you say about god being perfect yet creating man, who is imperfect. Namely, what makes you think man is imperfect? What makes you think anything is imperfect?

I'm not necessarily talking about the judeochristian god. Just the idea of god. There's more often than not an assumption that "god" means the bible god. I don't think god is like the god in the bible, I think the "god" in the bible is actually "godS". Hence the use of the "royal" "we / us / our". As I say it's hard to come up with anything like a full definition. Let's just go with creator, perfect in every way, all powerful, all knowing, omnipresent, yada yada. You know, the usual stuff. Forget the bible. I haven't even read much of it. The old testament is incomprehensible, but I've read through the Jesus bits in the new test. And I don't believe that the Jesus in the bible existed, not as "Jesus" anyway. Perhaps he's a composite, or maybe based on someone, who knows.

I appreciate that if you ever had a personal experience, you'' consider it as evidence (I know I'm paraphrasing, tell me if I've got that wrong). I wasn't expecting you to say that, I was expecting you to say that even with an experience, you'd reject it and try and remain "rational" (whatever that means). At least you're acknowledging that personal experience is convincing, and by extension, hopefully, also agreeing with me that believers aren't crazy, just extremely and deeply convinced.

If I told you that I've realised that god exists, and I told you, and you believed me that god exists, that's not the same as you having the same realisation. Hold on, it actually is, because you'd have to have had the same realisation to agree. Otherwise you'd just be going along with me for no good reason. I get what you're saying though but it's all about where you "are". I don't know what terminology you'd use to describe what I mean when I say "being on a certain wavelength". You know when you try and try to explain something to someone and they just don't get you? They always have their version of things. Depressed people, anorexic people, etc, you can tell them that hey, you're worthy, or hey, you're not fat, but as long as they're in that state of mind, they'll never quite grasp it. Either god exists, or doesn't, but if god exists, I can't ever convicne you (which is why I'd rarely give it much direct effort - I'd have to see signs that you're receptive before I'd try), and if "he" (I don't like saying he) doesn't, you couldn't convince me as long asI'm in lalaland. But am I in lalaland? This is why I put a lot more value in philosophy than "science", when it comes to the question of god, at least.



Gnug215, when you talk about being led to where you are now, that's pretty much what I mean by being on a certain wavelength. You go with where the evidence (determined by what you'll accept as eviddence, based on your own "wavelength") and it leads you (or you lead yourself) to wherever you are now. You make a distinction between some experiences and others. That's where I differ. I see everything as being in the same category. Knowledge, science, it's so subjective.



Master ghost knight (damn, you lot have such strange names. Mind you I can hardly talk), if someone tells me their version of something, or explanation, I'd also ask why. I'd also ask myself why, and until I myself find an answer, I'd put it down as unanswered. The basis that you might use to accept or reject things, I'd say that in itself is subjective. As you say, it's already having your ideas formed.



I'm interested in all views, and I'm going to create a folder for any links that are relevant. This is all good stuff, and hopefully we can all learn something. Maybe one day one of you can write a book about lalaland and its inhabitants. And don't take any of what I've said in a confrontational way, I'm not usually into confrontations, I don't see the point. Let's just say that we were all in a room talking, I'd be smiling and handing out snacks. And alcohol.

Lots and lots of alcohol.

 

[Gnug215]

Gnug215, when you talk about being led to where you are now, that's pretty much what I mean by being on a certain wavelength. You go with where the evidence (determined by what you'll accept as eviddence, based on your own "wavelength") and it leads you (or you lead yourself) to wherever you are now. You make a distinction between some experiences and others. That's where I differ. I see everything as being in the same category. Knowledge, science, it's so subjective.

The "wavelength" you speak of is something else that I consider to be evidence against the existence of one true God as a kind of being that is an ideal version of man - and that includes the Christian God, as he is usually presented.
Because the way the Christians present God, I don't see how he could let events unfold in such a manner as to let people get this kind of wavelength. I suppose that doesn't function well againts a more fluid concept of God.

I can accept and understand that you have a different take on making a distinction between what I suppose we can call subjective and objective experiences. Having thought about it for a while now I find that I'm having problems explaining properly how exactly how I make the distinction. Perhaps the two concepts are genuinely distinct, but the making the distinction individually will always be a subjective excercise?

Another piece of evidence, I guess you could say, against the "common" idea of God is that there really shouldn't be this confusion or distinction, when we're talking about divine truth. Does that make sense?


But hey... if you didn't expect many answers to questions like those on these forums, you're in for a surprise!

 

[Worldquest]

Gnug215, when you talk about being led to where you are now, that's pretty much what I mean by being on a certain wavelength. You go with where the evidence (determined by what you'll accept as eviddence, based on your own "wavelength") and it leads you (or you lead yourself) to wherever you are now. You make a distinction between some experiences and others. That's where I differ. I see everything as being in the same category. Knowledge, science, it's so subjective.

The "wavelength" you speak of is something else that I consider to be evidence against the existence of one true God as a kind of being that is an ideal version of man - and that includes the Christian God, as he is usually presented.
Because the way the Christians present God, I don't see how he could let events unfold in such a manner as to let people get this kind of wavelength. I suppose that doesn't function well againts a more fluid concept of God.

I can accept and understand that you have a different take on making a distinction between what I suppose we can call subjective and objective experiences. Having thought about it for a while now I find that I'm having problems explaining properly how exactly how I make the distinction. Perhaps the two concepts are genuinely distinct, but the making the distinction individually will always be a subjective excercise?

Another piece of evidence, I guess you could say, against the "common" idea of God is that there really shouldn't be this confusion or distinction, when we're talking about divine truth. Does that make sense?


But hey... if you didn't expect many answers to questions like those on these forums, you're in for a surprise!

It seems to me that there's diversity in the universe. Some people (again, my take) can "see" god, and others don't. I don't even see the need for all of us to know about or even care about god's existence, I don't see it as matter of morality. I mean, who cares if you can't sense god? Who cares if you live your life not knowing about god, as long as you are still unknowingly being "good"? I don't judge people by their convictions. And if I was a christian, in the fullest sense, I wouldn't think that you're going to hell or anything. If god is all about love, then it would a rather stupid god that demands that you go along with silly stories just because he said so. It's your life. I'm sure god is a big boy and can handle himself and isn't threatened or prone to tantrums just because you don't believe. That's where fundies get on my nerves. If it's any consolation, at least I don't look down on anyone who I consider to not be able to do that (see god). If you don't, no big deal. And if god can't handle it then he should grow up. Hey god, you can't handle it? Grow some balls and live with it. Or face a coup. Sorry, don't mind me, just chatting to the lord there.

What you say about subjectivity, objective experiences, explaining things and such, that's the grey area which causes so much disagreement, and probably one of the most interesting areas for me, hence my interest in philosophy. Philosophy has its own kind of "logic", which maybe could go some way to answering these age old questions. You have trouble explaining yourself, join the club, this is strange territory, but so be it.

Yes I know what you mean about there shouldn't be confusion. The way I look at it, why would god give us a manual on his existence, and what he does? It's an odd concept but maybe we're simply supposed to just get on with it and either be onblivious and always wonder, or have some idea about what's goin on, or just not care. Another theory is that between lives we revert to a natural state in which we do know exactly what's going on. I thought I'd throw that into the mix.

Right, time for a walk to the shops, I'll be back in 10.

 

[monitoradiation]

It's important to you that god is defined fully before looking for evidence. The problem I have with that is that god, if there's a god, isn't something that we'd have the capacity to fully define. I mean, can you even define, say, a football, fully? Sure, you can give definitions that mean something to you, and which you have the capacity to comprehend. All you have to say to qualify a football as something that one would seek evidence for is say : it's round (we all know what that means), it bounces, you can kick it, it's a certain size, it gets used in a game called football (we know what that means), etc. But what about the processes involved in making the football? And so on. If you think about it, we could make a list of things about a football which would go well beyond what you'd need to know before you know what you're looking for. It's probably infinite, or certainly huge. Usually, round / bouncy / a certain size plus amaybe a couple of other things is all we need.

Perhaps I didn't explain it well enough. I'll start from the beginning again.

The reason we have words is to put labels onto things about which we'd like to communicate. Every label should have clear definitions that are distinct characteristics and properties that describes the items that fit into the category.

When I say fully-defined,I don't mean it as known to the last quark. I mean in terms of its function, properties, etc.

A good analogy is weirdly shaped boxes (categories). How do we know there are items that can fit into a particular box (existent items that fit the category)? You first have to know how the box is "shaped" (ie, how the category is defined), and then you can start evaluating whether or not anything actually fits into the box.

You don't need to know everything there is to know about an OBJECT that already fits in the category for the category to be fully-defined.

For example, a football is defined as an the object which is an ellipsoid-shaped leather object that is used for the game of Football. The category of "football" is fully-defined even though the objects that fit within the category have variances with respect to individual properties, and the fact that we don't know every little last detail about the particulars of the ball is irrelevant to its category. The category is still fully-defined.

So with god, if you want a full definition you're probably never going to have one, just like you can't have a full definition of anything else. It comes down to what things mean to us and whether or not we understand what they are supposed to be. So I don't think you need a full list. Just the basics, at least to begin with, ie a creator.

A fully-defined (and self-contained) definition of a god could, conceivably, be very simple:

"A god is a supernatural entity who answers prayers".

That is a fully-defined definition of a god. I don't see how defining a god would be problematic unless you impose the condition on your definition that you cannot define it. That would be akin to me saying that a leopard is impossible to define because I've deemed it undefinable. That's an assumption that you would have to prove before you get to use it.

What is NOT a fully-defined god is one that is:

"A god is someone outside of everything that affects reality for some people some of the time."

That is not a good definition because there are unknowns to when and under what conditions this category is applicable.

In the first case, I can then start looking for entities that fit into the category. In the latter case, I can't make any effort to look for anything because I don't even know when characteristics of the category actually apply.

Now, theists (and deists) tends to assert that entities exist in their "god-box". Atheists are those that fall into one or more of the following:

1) Not convinced that the god-box is well-shaped;
2) Not convinced that there are entities that fit the god-box;
3) Convinced that nothing fit into the god-box.

Theists tend to shy away from defining their god-box because it would be too simple to disprove. The more vague and nebulous their "god-box" is, the less likely it is to be disproved that the god-box is well-shaped or that entities are present in it. However, that increases the difficulty in convincing atheists that anything fits into the god-box.

I'm sure you could define mercy as part of the process of justice. For example, not punishing someone who kills another person (even though technically it's illegal and punishable) if their reasons are considered understandable (ie they were defending themselves, or temporary "insanity"). I think maybe you're thinking of justice as just letting someone off if you favour them (or maybe not, you tell me).

Well, this is just a simple example of how some people have defined their god-box. I'm merely pointing out the definition of perfectly-just and perfectly-merciful are contradictory. Now onto the question of justice and mercy:

Your example that a murder is pardoned based on the reasons being understandable does not count as mercy, because that is the proper application of justice and jurisprudence, because their reason for the action counts towards the underlying context.

I think you're committing an equivocation fallacy between the justice system, what justice is, and morality. I've never claimed that there is an absolute objective moral standard, which is why I never claim that anything is perfectly just.

However, if god were the perfect moral judge, then there is ALWAYS a deserving reward/punishment for every action performed under every context that is relevant to the action. God can only show mercy if the reward/punishment he decides to mete out is NOT what the objective moral standard demands. And therefore, god cannot be perfectly just AND perfect merciful at the same time.

For example. God knows that person A murdered person B for absolutely no reason. None whatsoever. There is no excuse for the crime.

Justice in this case is a punitive measure, perhaps incarceration for a period, perhaps the punishment is death by hanging, whatever. A perfectly just god would know what measures to take. Mercy, in this scenario, is letting person A go, KNOWING that, whatever the punitive measures are, letting person A go free is NOT one of them. Mercy is by necessity the suspension of justice.

Self contradictory definitions. Again I think that's a matter of understanding. I have a saying, which goes : sometimes you have to be vague to be accurate. I'll leave it to you to say if you know what I mean by that.

I understand somewhat what you're saying. What you mean to say is that sometimes you have to generalize because without generalization it would take too long to describe certain things. Therefore, my response to your "matter of understanding" is no. Accuracy by definition requires terms which are not vague. What you really mean to say, I think, is that sometimes you have to be vague to be encompassing.

It's more to do with what level of detail is relevant when describing a label. But here, I'm not talking about details of descriptions. I'm talking about how to properly define a label. That has nothing to do with vagueness being an advantage.

For example:

I define a square as a shape which has 4 equidistant sides.
I define a circle as a shape which is parametrically equidistant from a centerpoint by a radius R.
Now I define a shape called "unknownazoid" as a shape which is both a square AND a circle.

As a consequence of their definitions, a square and a circle cannot be the same item.

Therefore, unknownazoid is NOT A SHAPE because its definition is self-contradictory.

A square has a rigid definition, as does a circle. An unknownazoid cannot exist because it is logically contradictory.

I know what you mean about personifying things that occur naturally. And I understand about wishful thinking. But that doesn't mean that god doesn't exist.

I've never said it means that the god doesn't exist. I'm simply pointing out the application of Occam's razor.

If a personification of natural phenomena is real, then that is something that has to be demonstrated. Without evidence of it, I have no reason to accept that it's true.

I have a problem with what you say about god being perfect yet creating man, who is imperfect. Namely, what makes you think man is imperfect? What makes you think anything is imperfect?

Tell me, in your theology, are humans flawed? That's why I told you in the beginning that I'm presuming your god being the judeochristian god. The whole reason for redemption is precisely because we're not perfect. If we were, why would we need salvation?

I'm not necessarily talking about the judeochristian god. Just the idea of god. There's more often than not an assumption that "god" means the bible god. I don't think god is like the god in the bible, I think the "god" in the bible is actually "godS". Hence the use of the "royal" "we / us / our". As I say it's hard to come up with anything like a full definition. Let's just go with creator, perfect in every way, all powerful, all knowing, omnipresent, yada yada. You know, the usual stuff. Forget the bible. I haven't even read much of it. The old testament is incomprehensible, but I've read through the Jesus bits in the new test. And I don't believe that the Jesus in the bible existed, not as "Jesus" anyway. Perhaps he's a composite, or maybe based on someone, who knows.

Actually if i understand the history correctly, the evolution of the judeochristian god is precisely what you've stated. It was a collection of gods, each with their own "areas", kind of like Greek and Norse mythologies. Over time they got combined and that's why the judeochristian god is so schizophrenic.

I appreciate that if you ever had a personal experience, you'' consider it as evidence (I know I'm paraphrasing, tell me if I've got that wrong). I wasn't expecting you to say that, I was expecting you to say that even with an experience, you'd reject it and try and remain "rational" (whatever that means). At least you're acknowledging that personal experience is convincing, and by extension, hopefully, also agreeing with me that believers aren't crazy, just extremely and deeply convinced.

A personal experience is subjective. Because of it, I will look for corroborating evidence that support my personal experience. I wouldn't reject it out-of-hand simply because it would be my personal experience, but its weighting against non-subjective evidence would be diminished by that fact.

Also, I have to say that repeatability is important. If I dreamt one night that the next day I will win the lottery, and I do, it isn't strong evidence that I have precognitive abilities about the future. If I were doing this nightly, or even willing it to happen, then I may begin to be somewhat justified in assuming that I have some sort of ability.

If I told you that I've realised that god exists, and I told you, and you believed me that god exists, that's not the same as you having the same realisation. Hold on, it actually is, because you'd have to have had the same realisation to agree. Otherwise you'd just be going along with me for no good reason.

That's totally different from what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about accepting someone's personal account is NOT the same as having the same personal experience yourself. That's all I'm saying.

I get what you're saying though but it's all about where you "are". I don't know what terminology you'd use to describe what I mean when I say "being on a certain wavelength". You know when you try and try to explain something to someone and they just don't get you?

Failure to communicate? That's why I stress the importance of fully-defined labels.

They always have their version of things. Depressed people, anorexic people, etc, you can tell them that hey, you're worthy, or hey, you're not fat, but as long as they're in that state of mind, they'll never quite grasp it.

No, people don't have their own version of things. Nobody has a monopoly on facts or the reality. We share this reality. What's different is only how they interpret it using their own values.

Either god exists, or doesn't, but if god exists, I can't ever convicne you (which is why I'd rarely give it much direct effort - I'd have to see signs that you're receptive before I'd try), and if "he" (I don't like saying he) doesn't, you couldn't convince me as long asI'm in lalaland. But am I in lalaland? This is why I put a lot more value in philosophy than "science", when it comes to the question of god, at least.

The default position about whether something exists is that it doesn't until there's sufficient evidence to warrant the acceptance of the claim that it does exist. Like a person on trial is innocent of the crime until there is sufficient evidence to convict.

Most atheists take the view that we are not convinced that god exists. I don't take the view that we know that god doesn't exist. Those are two different things. One is a rejection of a claim, the other is a positive claim.

Philosophy? What does philosophy say about the existence of the supernatural? And even if philosophy states that a god can exist, how do you go about proving it?

 

[Gnug215]

It seems to me that there's diversity in the universe. Some people (again, my take) can "see" god, and others don't. I don't even see the need for all of us to know about or even care about god's existence, I don't see it as matter of morality. I mean, who cares if you can't sense god? Who cares if you live your life not knowing about god, as long as you are still unknowingly being "good"? I don't judge people by their convictions. And if I was a christian, in the fullest sense, I wouldn't think that you're going to hell or anything. If god is all about love, then it would a rather stupid god that demands that you go along with silly stories just because he said so. It's your life. I'm sure god is a big boy and can handle himself and isn't threatened or prone to tantrums just because you don't believe. That's where fundies get on my nerves. If it's any consolation, at least I don't look down on anyone who I consider to not be able to do that (see god). If you don't, no big deal. And if god can't handle it then he should grow up. Hey god, you can't handle it? Grow some balls and live with it. Or face a coup. Sorry, don't mind me, just chatting to the lord there.

What you say about subjectivity, objective experiences, explaining things and such, that's the grey area which causes so much disagreement, and probably one of the most interesting areas for me, hence my interest in philosophy. Philosophy has its own kind of "logic", which maybe could go some way to answering these age old questions. You have trouble explaining yourself, join the club, this is strange territory, but so be it.

Yes I know what you mean about there shouldn't be confusion. The way I look at it, why would god give us a manual on his existence, and what he does? It's an odd concept but maybe we're simply supposed to just get on with it and either be onblivious and always wonder, or have some idea about what's goin on, or just not care. Another theory is that between lives we revert to a natural state in which we do know exactly what's going on. I thought I'd throw that into the mix.

Right, time for a walk to the shops, I'll be back in 10.

Hi again,

Well, I suppose it's both a good and bad thing that you have such a "fluid" notion of God. The good thing, I guess, is that it's not the Christian God, as he is most often described (although the descriptions of him are really all over the place), because I think that's really the God concept that people in here have a hardest time time - and have spent the most time thinking about, and so usually have very good reasons for rejecting - and the people on these boards might not have a huge beef with you about that.

On the flip side, it will be hard for anyone here to actually argue against your idea of God, because it seems so loosely defined.

It sounds like you're more of a deist I guess, and I'm not sure if there's any way to debunk the deist notion of a God, but I think to most in here that's not a problem.
Where people here (and other places in this "movement") get confrontational and argumentative is when the notion of God manifests itself in this world through the unfounded claims of religious people. Specifically, when it affects policy, so on issues such as abortion, gay marriage, creationism/evolution, science, etc.

That said, you'll probably still be able to get plenty of interesting philosophical discussions going in here.

 

[Worldquest]

Food for thought (both of you). Definitions do play a big part in all this. And it's very personal too. I know I'm not responding to all of what you've both said but I need to think about and get my head around it.

 

[Squagnut]

I do have a few questions which always baffle me. I believe in god and that's only because I'm personally convinced and not because I've "seen" anything as such. Atheists, unless I've been reading it wrong, don't believe in god because they (you) aren't convinced that there's any evidence.

Hi and welcome, Worldquest. Yay, more hippies! I've not read other responses given here, as I don't want them to influence what I say. Apologies for any repetition. Like most atheists, I don't have an active belief that there is no god, I simply don't have an active belief that there is a god.

My questions are :

1 - Have you ever sought evidence yourself, without being prompted to?

Evidence of god? No. For me, evidence is the starting point. I look at evidence and form a world-view from it. This is the basic scientific approach - I don't have a goal in mind when forming a world-view, I simply look at the universe and see where it leads.

2 - What kind of evidence did (or would you, if you haven't yet) you seek?

I have no idea what kind of evidence to look for to determine whether or not god exists, because I don't know anything at all about god. I know what people say about god, but I also see that gods have a tendency to come and go - for example, few people today pay much attention to ancient Greek pagan gods, yet in history they were taken as seriously as the Christian god is today. It seems to me that gods are a product of culture, not the other way round.

3 - Why do you rely on external evidence (people showing you) rather than relying on personal experience?

Because I have only one pair of hands and limited resources, and I cannot research the entire universe myself. I rely on the honesty of scientists, which is coupled with things like the peer review process. The crucial difference between a religious approach and the scientific approach is that scientists aim to prove their ideas to be wrong (this is the function of experiment), whereas religious people aim to prove their ideas to be right, so that, for example, a beautiful flower can be taken as evidence of god. I recognise which is the harder path to follow. To me, a flower is evidence of flowers, even if I'm not oblivious to its beauty. Is that what you meant?

4 - Is not personally accepting external evidence the same as personal experience? After all, "seeing" and "accepting" are experiences, aren't they?

"Seeing" is an experience, but "accepting" is an act of judgement. It's fine to accept an idea because it has emotional appeal, but in so doing, one should be aware that others may feel differently about it. There's a difference between that and accepting an idea because, no matter how hard one has tried, one has failed to prove that idea to be wrong. This is why I accept the big bang and evolution theories - both of which, to get back to Q.1, are derived from evidence. I'm sure you've seen stage magicians like Paul Daniels (an irritating little man but a seriously good stage conjuror) - your eyes might tell you that you've just seen something impossible, and so you could come away thinking that such magic is real, but your brain should tell you that it's just a trick, even if you don't know how it was done.

 

[borrofburi]

1 - Have you ever sought evidence yourself, without being prompted to?

Sort of. I was a theist once; I was prompted to seek evidence that would convert people, especially atheists/agnostics/non-believers, by the whole concept of evangelizing (I saw most of my peers playing emotional games, but manipulating people into agreeing with me seemed intellectually dishonest, so instead I sought evidence). Indeed it was this search that led to my deconversion. See Evid3nc3's video series, particularly "Other Christians" and further, on how that search for evidence destroyed his faith for a pretty good general concept of how that search for evidence destroyed my faith (and many other "deconverts' faith").

2 - What kind of evidence did (or would you, if you haven't yet) you seek?

What did I seek? I sought historical evidence that jesus existed and was a god, I found it severely wanting (of course now I question that historical significance even if that evidence had not been found wanting, for instance we have historical evidence that romulus founded rome and ascended into godhood, yet we don't consider this evidence that he actually was a god; that same problem exists for jesus). I also sought evidence of modern day interference, and found that wanting: e.g. prayer is indistinguishable from not-prayer. There is also the question of what do we consider god: if we met a very powerful alien that could read our thoughts and seemingly wish things into existence, how do we distinguish between a powerful alien working within the laws of physics and a powerful alien that actually is god who created physics?

Of course, on a certain level it doesn't matter: the real question is if a powerful being out there that cares very much about who we have sex with exists, and what evidence I would require to be convinced that there is such a thing. I haven't seen it in a while, but this video does at least an ok job detailing some of the things we would expect to see if this were a reality:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rqUsC2KsiI

However, the short version is: the evidence I require is anything that sufficiently distinguishes a reality with a god from a reality without a god. As things currently stand, looking at what I currently can find, either god is indistinguishable from nothing or he does not exist.

3 - Why do you rely on external evidence (people showing you) rather than relying on personal experience?

I have addressed this in numerous places both on and off this forum, however the shortest and simplest version of why I do not accept personal experience and anecdote as evidence are contained in these two videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJWxajLJPtU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPqerbz8KDc (key phrase: "our perceptions aren't always trustworthy")

4 - Is not personally accepting external evidence the same as personal experience? After all, "seeing" and "accepting" are experiences, aren't they?

No, and no. I could explain further, however I am not unkind enough to presume that you are incapable of seeing the difference between things like: "I took homeopathy once and it made me feel better, therefore it works and you should use it too" and "we gave this medicine to 5 thousand individuals and compared the effects to this group of 5 thousand individuals who did not take any medicine, and we came to the conclusions X, Y, and Z".


EDIT: I didn't really mean to submit, I haven't finished reading the thread yet, so mayhaps everything I've said has already been addressed. I apologize if I'm rehashing old ground.
EDIT 2: looks like my post is relatively unique, I won't modify it.