What if a god does exist?

[televator]

"You suck! Point me in the direction of Christopher Hitchens. I'll see myself out." *turns, gives middle finger*

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Better one:
"I demand a refund."

 

[WarK]

Better one:
"I demand a refund."

I'm sorry but being born into predominantly theistic society is a pre-existing condition.

Have a nice day, though

 

[Nom_de_Plume]

You mean it is a person? I'm going to kick it in the crotch and see if it has balls or not.

Well yes I imagine he would be person-esque. So you could totally kick him in the crotch.

According to that book and all, I'm pretty sure it says we were created in his image.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

From the answers, it appears no-one's taken the question seriously.

Those answers would only be appropriate if God were deistic in nature. Although, with a deistic God, it's assumed that there'd be no spiritual aspect to Nature - including you - that would/could survive death.

If God did exist, in the theistic sense - as the question implies - then you would not be "separate" from God; you'd be part of God and *know* it, thus there'd be no cynicism/sarcasm/etc. There'd never - couldn't - be a "Oh no!" moment.

It's as if you'd lived your life as a "single cell", only to find out - when you died - that you are actually part of a multicellular organism. That knowledge would pre-exist your "life" as a "single cell".

Kindest regards,

James

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

DG,

It is not my intention to change the way you interpret or understand a Dieistic 'god', but if one applies the concept of scientific parsimony to the idea of a Dieistic 'god' doesn't one essentially end up at an agnostic, atheistic, or agnostic atheist stance with regards to the question of 'god'?

It appears to me that if one takes the null hypothesis test as 'no god exists', until sufficient evidence is brought forth to counter the claim, then one would quickly go from the Dieistic stance of a god to one of the 'atheistic' stances that I mentioned above. Also, what would be the basis for accepting the idea of a god when scientific parsimony is used?

I realize that you could be answering the question with the assumption that a god exists given the title of the thread. If this is the case then please discard this message.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Greetings,

From the answers, it appears no-one's taken the question seriously.

We've taken the question with all the seriousness that it actually deserves. It is a stupid idea, and has been treated as such.

 

[CEbbesen]

Greetings,

From the answers, it appears no-one's taken the question seriously.

We've taken the question with all the seriousness that it actually deserves. It is a stupid idea, and has been treated as such.

It's just the same as what would you say to Harry Potter.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

DG,

It is not my intention to change the way you interpret or understand a Dieistic 'god', but if one applies the concept of scientific parsimony to the idea of a Dieistic 'god' doesn't one essentially end up at an agnostic, atheistic, or agnostic atheist stance with regards to the question of 'god'?

It appears to me that if one takes the null hypothesis test as 'no god exists', until sufficient evidence is brought forth to counter the claim, then one would quickly go from the Dieistic stance of a god to one of the 'atheistic' stances that I mentioned above. Also, what would be the basis for accepting the idea of a god when scientific parsimony is used?

I realize that you could be answering the question with the assumption that a god exists given the title of the thread. If this is the case then please discard this message.

Thank you for discussing my post.

I accept that the null hypothesis beggars the question, however, as an Agnostic myself, at least considering the question is a reasonable thing to do, from my perspective.

Regardless of whether God exists or not, the "know-ability" of God really depends on whether there's life-after-death or not.

In Deism - where a Creator "starts the ball rolling" but has nothing to do with the universe after that - there's no life-after-death (due to the universe being materialistic with no spiritual aspect - such as souls). As a result of this fact, it's impossible to "know God" - even though God exists.

In Theism - with souls and life-after-death - God is knowable.

Agnostics are simply keeping an open mind, waiting until death before deciding - as this is the earliest moment when one might gain evidence of God's existence. Although, as I indicated above, without life-after-death, even on death one would still not have evidence - nor ever gain it. God would be forever "unknowable".

We've taken the question with all the seriousness that it actually deserves. It is a stupid idea, and has been treated as such.

I understand your perspective, but "There are no stupid questions".

Kindest regards,

James

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I understand your perspective, but "There are no stupid questions".

Yes. Yes there are.

It is sort of like discussing the feeding arrangements for an invisible pink unicorn. "Do you think my invisible pink unicorn would prefer mineral or distilled water, oats or hay?" is a stupid question. :lol:

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

Hrm..... Interesting interpretation of the null hypothesis.

What the null hypothesis states is that a phenomenon (A sickness) should remained detached from an appropriate explanation (A particular process that cures the sickness) without the appropriate evidence to back such a claim. Therefore, 'no gods exist' does not beg the question because 'no gods exist' should be the default position. If someone is going to state that a 'god' exists then the burden of proof is on them to provide the evidence for their specific flavor of 'god'. With a Diestic god one could apply the scientific principle of parsimony, no need to 'multiply' the start of something to get your flavor of god.........

So in summary:

1. The Null hypothesis states that an event and a cause should remain detached until sufficient evidence is brought forth to say otherwise.
2. Use the scientific concept of parsimony to 'shed' the 'extra causes' to explain a event. No need to make the cause more complex than need be (it could be and achieving 100% certainty would be absurd from an absolute sense but from a rational or reasonable standpoint then 'close enough for government work is sometimes good enough').


If you want to build a fantasy realm like Harry Potter........ Then by all means let the imagination roll........ And sometimes very small parts or portions of those 'fantasies' can lead to real life solutions.

Ergo...... 'Agnostic atheist' is a viable solution to the question of 'god'.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Hrm..... Interesting interpretation of the null hypothesis.

What the null hypothesis states is that a phenomenon (A sickness) should remained detached from an appropriate explanation (A particular process that cures the sickness) without the appropriate evidence to back such a claim. Therefore, 'no gods exist' does not beg the question because 'no gods exist' should be the default position. If someone is going to state that a 'god' exists then the burden of proof is on them to provide the evidence for their specific flavor of 'god'. With a Diestic god one could apply the scientific principle of parsimony, no need to 'multiply' the start of something to get your flavor of god.........

So in summary:

1. The Null hypothesis states that an event and a cause should remain detached until sufficient evidence is brought forth to say otherwise.
2. Use the scientific concept of parsimony to 'shed' the 'extra causes' to explain a event. No need to make the cause more complex than need be (it could be and achieving 100% certainty would be absurd from an absolute sense but from a rational or reasonable standpoint then 'close enough for government work is sometimes good enough').

With all due respect, I think you're somewhat confused about the following:

Something which "beggars the question" is not the same as something which "begs the question" (!)

The former is what I stated in my earlier post - that I accepted that the null hypothesis beggared the question (concerning the existence of God).

You appear to have misread - or misunderstood - what I wrote.

If you want to build a fantasy realm like Harry Potter........ Then by all means let the imagination roll........ And sometimes very small parts or portions of those 'fantasies' can lead to real life solutions.

Ergo...... 'Agnostic atheist' is a viable solution to the question of 'god'.

I can only claim to be comfortable with being Agnostic - I really don't know if God exists or not, and don't wish to be labelled Agnostic (a)theist, as a default, as it implies that I'm with(out) belief in God(s).

Kindest regards,

James

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

I can only claim to be comfortable with being Agnostic - I really don't know if God exists or not, and don't wish to be labelled Agnostic (a)theist, as a default, as it implies that I'm with(out) belief in God(s).

I wasn't labeling you personally as an 'Agnostic Atheist'. I was simply stating that it could used as a viable option for the question regarding a god or god(s).

This last quote was an attempt to bring CEbbsen's comment into play with this thread. It was a half hearted attempt to show that what we don't know might not always stay in the starting position and one of the tools that humans use for creativity in the sciences is to use a low end form of fantasy to dream up ideas and find possible solutions to everyday problems.

I think fantasy can be used as a starting point to generate potential solutions but the knowledge of science helps to bring those 'starting ideas / fantasies' into reality (something that we interact with or accomplishes some task). I will use the example of using fantasy to dream up potential solutions for outer space travel: I'm thinking that the fantasy/idea/dream of getting into outer space was a precursor to physically building the equipment needed to actually get there.

This post may not be directly written to you as some other individual could read the thread and say, "You know, I never actually thought of 'science' being that way before." The tool of science is like a cold that tries to answer the question of the plausibility of some event or process.

The "I wonder if........" can be just as important as having the knowledge to see if that thing you are wondering about is even possible. You put the "I wonder if" and the actual knowledge together and it's the best tool known to man to try to solve potential issues.

Anyhoot, I think I have successfully derailed the thread. :lol:

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Well, threads get derailed all the time - though, like this one, not necessarily on purpose.

I take your point that "agnostic atheist" could be used as a default (null) label - I just can't call myself that (or agnostic theist).

I'd rather sit on the fence of agnosticism and wait until I die!

As an aside, there's a interesting-looking book - How God Changes Your Brain: Breakthrough Findings from a Leading Neuroscientist.

Don't let the title mislead you!

As one reviewer points out:

The title of this book may give some people the wrong idea. 'How God Changes Your Brain' discusses Newberg & Waldman's latest neuroscientific research into how the brain is affected by various spiritual practises - particularly meditation, prayer & contemplation of God or a positive secular image. The tone is objective & the authors are not interested in pushing either a religious or anti-religious agenda.

Whether or not God actually exists is not discussed. For the authors, whether someones' beliefs are factually correct is secondary to whether or not they are actually good for their physical & mental health. Which for the most part, they are - apparently different methods of meditation & prayer have different, yet universally positive, effects on our neurological functioning & physical & emotional health. According to the authors, "even minimal religious participation is correlated with enhancing longevity & personal health". Conversely, there is a chapter on the damaging effect of beliefs in a punitive, wrathful God (increased stress & paranoia) but the main message is a positive one.

Needless to say that the fact that belief in a compassionate "God" is, on the whole, beneficial, doesn't mean that "God" exists - but it does, at least, support spiritual beliefs as part of a individual's life, along with involvement in a (religious) community. [I can imagine Hitch turning over in his grave!]

Such a conscious belief could not be dismissed as "delusional", as Dawkins would put it, as the individual would know that their belief was self-generated, rather than down to the existence of a "God".

I'll have to add it to my - ever-growing(!) - reading list...

Kindest regards,

James

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

Needless to say that the fact that belief in a compassionate "God" is, on the whole, beneficial, doesn't mean that "God" exists - but it does, at least, support spiritual beliefs as part of a individual's life, along with involvement in a (religious) community. [I can imagine Hitch turning over in his grave!]

Such a conscious belief could not be dismissed as "delusional", as Dawkins would put it, as the individual would know that their belief was self-generated, rather than down to the existence of a "God".

DG,

Thanks for the reading recommendation, I'm currently looking for a good book to read.

Let me proceed by offering a slightly different interpretation of what you wrote:

I think I understand what you are tying to describe as "God". If what you or the authors mean by "God" then some of the written text below may not apply as it could be covered in the book.

The exercise below is an attempt to put your quoted text in my own words, as that is what 'proper' communication is all about:

I'm thinking that the authors should have attempted to distinguish between a compassionate 'god' and someone that tries to strive toward compassion. Could it be that a particular person that strives toward compassionate ideals could receive near identical benefits than the person whom follows a compassionate 'god'? It appears that by applying the concept of scientific parsimony that one could conclude that it's the compassionate 'behavior' that is the driving force and not the belief in a compassionate Diety. I wonder if the authors discuss the potential of not multiplying an idea of a Diety in order to achieve similar results. Also, if one were to read the bible with an open mind, I think it is quite clear that the Diety depicted in that text is NOT compassionate. What the preachers or pastors are trying to depict in a particular congregation could be classified as the compassionate entity but that doesn't mean that the one in the bible is compassionate.

Again, I think that Dawkins could still have a point (by calling the belief a "delusion") if he is strictly talking about the belief in such a Diety and not the actual idea of compassion. The point is this: You will probably find compassionate 'atheists', compassionate 'theists', compassionate 'agnostics', uncompassionate 'atheists', uncompassionate 'theists', uncompassionate 'agnostics', and 'whatever the hell' other labels that could be used to describe someone's belief, disbelief, or unbelief.

Again, I think I have tried to use the concepts of the Null hypothesis and parsimony in my response.

I haven't read the book so understand that what I'm saying could be covered in the book.

Again, thank you for the book recommendation.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Needless to say that the fact that belief in a compassionate "God" is, on the whole, beneficial, doesn't mean that "God" exists - but it does, at least, support spiritual beliefs as part of a individual's life, along with involvement in a (religious) community. [I can imagine Hitch turning over in his grave!]

Such a conscious belief could not be dismissed as "delusional", as Dawkins would put it, as the individual would know that their belief was self-generated, rather than down to the existence of a "God".

DG,

Thanks for the reading recommendation, I'm currently looking for a good book to read.

Let me proceed by offering a slightly different interpretation of what you wrote:

I think I understand what you are tying to describe as "God". If what you or the authors mean by "God" then some of the written text below may not apply as it could be covered in the book.

The exercise below is an attempt to put your quoted text in my own words, as that is what 'proper' communication is all about:

I'm thinking that the authors should have attempted to distinguish between a compassionate 'god' and someone that tries to strive toward compassion. Could it be that a particular person that strives toward compassionate ideals could receive near identical benefits than the person whom follows a compassionate 'god'?

Firstly, there's no difference - results-wise - between someone who believes in a compassionate God and someone who strives towards compassionate ideals. The latter's ideals would be encompassed by a perfect being, whether human or divine. It would be little different than a Christian who, faced with a moral dilemma, asks "What would Jesus do?".

To give an analogy, if someone touched your back with a hot iron, your body would develop a welt from the burn. If you were hypnotised and touched with a cold piece of metal - whilst being told it was a hot iron - your body would suffer the same burn and welt.

The results are the same, whether due to an "external" or "internal" source - the body (including the brain) can't tell the difference between these two "beliefs".

Which is why belief has a scientifically observable effect on the brain.

From the information about the book, the authors aren't just dealing with divine imagery - secular imagery is also examined:. The results are similar. In my view, it really depends on the clarity of the imagery of "perfection" used by the individual.

In medieval times, European knights had their own image of perfection to which they strove: The Compleat Knight.

You'll find similar ideals all over the world throughout history - and not just in martial cultures or organizations.

What the authors are doing, I believe, is exploring the effects of such paragons - whether divinely inspired or not - on the effects of the brain.

It appears that by applying the concept of scientific parsimony that one could conclude that it's the compassionate 'behavior' that is the driving force and not the belief in a compassionate Diety.

It's not the behaviour that drives it - it's the imagery of a paragon of virtue to which one strives that "drives" it, regardless of whether it's a compassionate deity or human (a saint, for instance or - in my earlier example - the Compleat Knight).

I wonder if the authors discuss the potential of not multiplying an idea of a Diety in order to achieve similar results. Also, if one were to read the bible with an open mind, I think it is quite clear that the Diety depicted in that text is NOT compassionate. What the preachers or pastors are trying to depict in a particular congregation could be classified as the compassionate entity but that doesn't mean that the one in the bible is compassionate.

There are two "Gods" in the Bible - the one from the Old Testament and the one from the New Testament.

They are very different animals!

The OT God is the punitive - "hellfire and damnation" - type, the NT God is the "all-loving" one of Christianity.

The problem is that all too often, the two are confused - instead of promoting compassion - "forgive and forget" - preachers in America tend to use the hellfire and brimstone language of punishment for all eternity for any "sinfulness".

Christians should only be viewing life through the message of compassion.

Again, I think that Dawkins could still have a point (by calling the belief a "delusion") if he is strictly talking about the belief in such a Diety and not the actual idea of compassion.

In the context of a person believing in "God", where they take "God" as a given, then yes, Dawkins' would be right in calling such a person "delusional". However, if the person is consciously using imagery of a paragon - even if they think of this as "God" - then I don't believe Dawkins' epithet applies. This was the point I was making earlier.

The point is this: You will probably find compassionate 'atheists', compassionate 'theists', compassionate 'agnostics', uncompassionate 'atheists', uncompassionate 'theists', uncompassionate 'agnostics', and 'whatever the hell' other labels that could be used to describe someone's belief, disbelief, or unbelief.

Agreed - you'll even find (shock! horror!) unChristian "Christians"!

You only have to listen to some of the things American pastors - Pat Robertson, for example - come out with on TV and radio.

Again, I think I have tried to use the concepts of the Null hypothesis and parsimony in my response.

I haven't read the book so understand that what I'm saying could be covered in the book.

Again, thank you for the book recommendation.

I haven't read it either, though I did read the reviews - as well as the blurb on the back.

You might also find one of Paul Gilbert's books of interest.

The Compassionate Mind

The book deals with CBT (Cognitive-Based Therapy).where one uses meditative practices to develop compassion, both for oneself and others (he deals with clinical depression in his professional life).

The only caveat is that his somewhat prejudiced views on theists and somewhat simple views on their beliefs is a slight drawback. As one reviewer noted, his approach uses Buddhism, which doesn't really help non-Buddhists use of imagery.

However, you might find it of interest as a example of the conscious use of a compassionate ideal as a guide to becoming more compassionate.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

There are two "Gods" in the Bible - the one from the Old Testament and the one from the New Testament.

They are very different animals!

The OT God is the punitive - "hellfire and damnation" - type, the NT God is the "all-loving" one of Christianity.

The problem is that all too often, the two are confused - instead of promoting compassion - "forgive and forget" - preachers in America tend to use the hellfire and brimstone language of punishment for all eternity for any "sinfulness".

Christians should only be viewing life through the message of compassion.

I agree completely. As I have used a form of this argument many times before in various debates. But it appears that some Christians will only grant compassion based upon being part of the in-group. It also appears that some don't even realize that what they are doing is against the core belief that compassion is the way to treat your fellow 'neighbor'. My question is this........ If some only grant compassion to the in-group and find the out-group 'deplorable' or lesser human beings then are they not riding against one of their main core beliefs? I understand that it would be difficult to be compassionate in all situations but it appears to me that for Christians this is one of their core beliefs. Do some not see the blatant contradiction in this thinking? I also realize that some don't care to see or question that blatant contradiction either. Some typically make up some excuse or rationalization to counteract the confirmation bias. Or could it be that some want their cake and eat it too?

In the context of a person believing in "God", where they take "God" as a given, then yes, Dawkins' would be right in calling such a person "delusional". However, if the person is consciously using imagery of a paragon - even if they think of this as "God" - then I don't believe Dawkins' epithet applies. This was the point I was making earlier.

Perhaps the more appropriate term that should be used in your specific example is illusion (a distortion of reality) as opposed to delusion (a false belief about reality). At least the part referring to the paragon. I think the delusion enters the picture when one forcefully claims that the existence of such a being is factual as opposed to a possibility given the evidence or lack thereof. But the main question is........ Can one claim the existence 'knowledge' with 100% conviction and accuracy. I would say no because many things yet discovered or undiscovered could one day have a completely natural explanation. Again, it depends on how the theist defines their particular flavor of 'god' and the assumptions or presumptions they are using to make such claims (Using the concepts of the alternative hypothesis and null hypothesis).

It appears that one could distort or trick the brain into using a 'marker' for a case specific need.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

In the context of a person believing in "God", where they take "God" as a given, then yes, Dawkins' would be right in calling such a person "delusional". However, if the person is consciously using imagery of a paragon - even if they think of this as "God" - then I don't believe Dawkins' epithet applies. This was the point I was making earlier.

Perhaps the more appropriate term that should be used in your specific example is illusion (a distortion of reality) as opposed to delusion (a false belief about reality). At least the part referring to the paragon. I think the delusion enters the picture when one forcefully claims that the existence of such a being is factual as opposed to a possibility given the evidence or lack thereof. But the main question is........ Can one claim the existence 'knowledge' with 100% conviction and accuracy. I would say no because many things yet discovered or undiscovered could one day have a completely natural explanation. Again, it depends on how the theist defines their particular flavor of 'god' and the assumptions or presumptions they are using to make such claims (Using the concepts of the alternative hypothesis and null hypothesis).

It appears that one could distort or trick the brain into using a 'marker' for a case specific need.

I don't think one can call it "illusion" either - otherwise any form of "goal-setting" could be labelled such.

As Masefield puts it...

...And all I ask is a tall ship
and a star to steer her by...

The only difference is that we're creating the "star" in our own imagination.

As a guide, and friend, in Glendalough put it: "Life is about finding your way".

Kindest regards,

James

 

[bluejatheist]

I would have to believe, but wouldn't worship.

 

[Asrahn]

I would ask for a saxophone.

Then proceed to sax out.



Anything else would be meaningless.