How many believe in God

[fellowtraveler]

Originally Posted by joecooool

if god is not proven then belief he exists is currently unjustified

and if god can never be proven then belief he exists will never be justified.

Proven to whom? I've proved to myself that there is something more than meets the eye to this "reality". That's all that matters to me. Subjective? Yep, which renders "arguments" on both sides irrelevant. Your one-note (and that note has changed noticeibly during the discussion) thinking puts you neatly in a box. Someday it might be very painful to climb out of it. Close-mindedness is not anything to be proud of, junior.

[SonoranBob]

Originally Posted by fellowtraveler

Proven to whom? I've proved to myself that there is something more than meets the eye to this "reality". That's all that matters to me. Subjective? Yep, which renders "arguments" on both sides irrelevant. Your one-note (and that note has changed noticeibly during the discussion) thinking puts you neatly in a box. Someday it might be very painful to climb out of it. Close-mindedness is not anything to be proud of, junior.

Ah, lay off the kid ... he's not comfortable with mystery. He thinks everything is totally quantifiable. Eventually if he doesn't pick and choose what parts of science he groks, even science will lead him to the truth that nothing is certain and we lack the equipment to detect all that there is to perceive and to fully comprehend WTF we can even perceive.

That stuff is hard on the ego ... give him some years to get his ego softened up. He'll come around.

--Bob ;-)

[Jamie]

Who was it that said ... "it's not the unknown we should fear, it's the known!".

Mwhahahahaha.

Jamie.

[joecooool]

its amazing how much im being straw manned simply for being rational

im seeing one primary mistake your all making:

you keep appealing to the unknown to justify belief in specific things!


im the one thats saying leave the unknown unknown.

we only know what we have evidence to back, the rest is unknown, so leave it that way.

if you want to know more about the unknown you cant guess, you have to work on advancing science.

any guesses you have are just that: guesses. im simply pointing that out

god is a guess

i am not close minded, and i am not a science freak, so stop straw manning me as one, i am simply someone that recognizes our human limitations.


god belief is a god of the gaps fallacy, filling god into the unknown, and using ignorance of the unknown to justify its belief.

i tailor my beliefs to the empirical evidence, to mainstream scientific consensus. and i DONT think i know everything. i am the one that is admitting how little we do know. i am the one being humble and admitting that we know what we have empirical evidence and logical theory to explain, the rest we dont know, and we should step off our high horses and admit that!


all we know is what we can observe with our senses, this is why we have science, the rest is simply our imagination, a fantasy.

and i can back this position philosophically, i have studied the philosophy of science.


i am an agnostic atheist, in that i simply lack the belief that god exists, due to considering gods existence currently unknown. and i do not write the supernatural off as pure bullshit, i enjoy explaining it as subjectivity, as a demonstration of just how powerful the subjective portion of our reality can be.

this has been my position since the beginning of this thread, and has been my positon for several years now, since i have yet to meet anyone that has provided me with any evidence or reason to back their claim that god exists which i cannot easily refute in multiple ways.

i find the existence of god ends up being very similar to the existence of the matrix. a currently unknown, and possibly always unknowable, concept that is, and possibly always will be, possible yet never provable.

belief in things of that status is unjustified.

but if your going to be irrational and use faith to back your claim in things of that status(like god) then i can simply leave rationality as well and use faith as well to say god absolutely does not exist. and i do that sometimes, to try and balance people out to the middle position, that god existence is simply unknown.... and therefore irrelevant.

[Barcs]

Joe it seems like you are really bothered by other people's beliefs. Why does it affect your life so much what another person chooses to believe in? I don't understand why you find it necessary to go through all this to convince people of something they need to discover on their own. I notice this type of attitude coming from many atheists and theists alike. Many act as if their beliefs are the one true way. The bottom line is that nobody can scientifically prove god OR prove the big bang beyond the shadow of a doubt. Yes, there are tons of theories, but most likely nobody knows for certain. This is where faith comes in and people have varying beliefs on what exactly caused the universe to come about. People need to look inside of themselves and discover what there is to find. Everybody has beliefs that cannot be proved with science. It's part of being human. There is no irrefutable evidence that can prove the soul, the afterlife, ghosts, ufos, or even gravity, but people believe in many of those, plus there are countless eyewitness accounts. I like learning about the unknown. It is fun. All I'm really saying is ease up a bit, and let people believe what they want to. It's not going to affect your life in the least. Being agnostic, I believe that arguing over a POSSIBLE CONCEPT like god is silly, and does not accomplish anything but fuel anger.

[joecooool]

Originally Posted by Barcs

Joe it seems like you are really bothered by other people's beliefs. Why does it affect your life so much what another person chooses to believe in? I don't understand why you find it necessary to go through all this to convince people of something they need to discover on their own. I notice this type of attitude coming from many atheists and theists alike. Many act as if their beliefs are the one true way. The bottom line is that nobody can scientifically prove god OR prove the big bang beyond the shadow of a doubt. Yes, there are tons of theories, but most likely nobody knows for certain. This is where faith comes in and people have varying beliefs on what exactly caused the universe to come about. People need to look inside of themselves and discover what there is to find. Everybody has beliefs that cannot be proved with science. It's part of being human. There is no irrefutable evidence that can prove the soul, the afterlife, ghosts, ufos, or even gravity, but people believe in many of those, plus there are countless eyewitness accounts. I like learning about the unknown. It is fun. All I'm really saying is ease up a bit, and let people believe what they want to. It's not going to affect your life in the least. Being agnostic, I believe that arguing over a POSSIBLE CONCEPT like god is silly, and does not accomplish anything but fuel anger.

*sighs*

ill address a few of the confusions in your paragraph:

1- atheism is not a belief, its a lack of belief in god
2- you said its unknown if god exists or not, that is all im saying, the same thing you just said, so we agree.
3- the reason i write is to educate and inform people of the fact that gods existence is unknown, and therefore belief that god exists objectively is unjustified
4- faith is nothing more then an excuse to believe things without evidence, if i have faith i can fly can i? will you tell me i cant? thats all i do towards the faith in god
5- belief that the soul, ghosts are any of that other stuff you mentioned objectively exists is also unjustified, irrational.
6- you saying to let people believe what they want is self refuting, because i believe gods existence is unknown, so take your own advice and let me believe what i want. and talk about it.
7-the big bang has mainstream scientific consensus.
8- if anyone gets angry because i point out the fact that gods existence is unknown then thats their problem.

[Jamie]

Hi Joe,

I'm not getting angry! On the topic of 'god' ...

Before we can debate the existance of 'god', I think we should fisrt define what 'god' is. What do you think? Does that make sense? It's probably a whole thread in itself ...

So, when people say 'god' what do they mean?

To be honest, I haven't a clue! Or a care.

I know what I mean, when I use the word. I'll come to that later. Let me also point out, that I consider the word 'god' itself, to be very loaded, with connotation and meaning that I don't personally subscribe to. I certainly, don't do the 'let's go to church and all believe the same thing, because, well, that's what everyone else is doing'. NO NO NO NO NO NO!

I think our beliefs as to the nature of reality, our own being etc, should come about through personal introspection and spiritual growth, which isn't forced, but should be as natural as a flower opening up in springtime.

There is no religious basis for my belief, in what I refer to as 'god' (actually, I very rarely use the word, I find it creates more problems than it solves). I am also way more inclined towards Taoism.

So, my version of 'god' is more akin to 'tao', I use it to mean, the source of everything and nothing, manifest physical universe, and other all planes of existance and non-existance. I certainly don't mean there's a little man with a white beard sitting up in the clouds, who loves us all. It's, for me, an impersonal force, or intelligence, that pervades all life. I think yoda says it best:

YouTube - Yoda Dagobah

Also, there's an issue of, where do you end, and god begins? What is behond yourself, behond your body, your mind, your spirit? Where you end, what is there behond that? Yes, I agree with you, there is a real danger that we rely on hope and wish-ful thinking, this is a big NO NO, but, it isn't what I'm suggesting anyone should do. Conversely, there is much danger in too much reliance on our logical clinical minds to come to conclusion as to the nature of reality. We can be blinded by our own understanding. All I am advocating, is complete, utter, unappologetic, self honety, self awareness.

In the end (or where I am now) I come to the following conclusions:

You *are* god (you are absolute reality manifesting itself, probably checking out what it's like to have limitations).

The word 'god' is very dangerous to use in our culture. It's just so 'loaded' and means different things to different people.

That's all for now.

Jamie.

[fellowtraveler]

Originally Posted by SonoranBob

Ah, lay off the kid ... he's not comfortable with mystery. He thinks everything is totally quantifiable. Eventually if he doesn't pick and choose what parts of science he groks, even science will lead him to the truth that nothing is certain and we lack the equipment to detect all that there is to perceive and to fully comprehend WTF we can even perceive.

That stuff is hard on the ego ... give him some years to get his ego softened up. He'll come around.

--Bob ;-)

Oh, you're right. It's frustrating when they're halfway bright but have almost no insight. Or perhaps it really is a pure troll. I guess it's hard to turn off mentor mode after one reaches a certain age...but he'll find out for himself. Tough to see the same stupid mistakes over and over, but I guiess that's how the system works.

Thanks Bob.

[joecooool]

Originally Posted by Jamie

Hi Joe,

So, my version of 'god' is more akin to 'tao', I use it to mean, the source of everything and nothing, manifest physical universe, and other all planes of existance and non-existance. I certainly don't mean there's a little man with a white beard sitting up in the clouds, who loves us all. It's, for me, an impersonal force, or intelligence, that pervades all life. I think yoda says it best:

intelligence that pervades all life? i consider that to be silly. there is no reason to think that the universe, subatomic particles, the fabric of spacetime, or anything other then biological brains, are intelligent.

intelligence isn't some grand mystical thing, its predicted that there will be robots that have higher intelligence then us within 50yrs

Originally Posted by fellowtraveler

Oh, you're right. It's frustrating when they're halfway bright but have almost no insight. Or perhaps it really is a pure troll. I guess it's hard to turn off mentor mode after one reaches a certain age...but he'll find out for himself. Tough to see the same stupid mistakes over and over, but I guiess that's how the system works.

Thanks Bob.

how is it stupid to be the one who admits gods existence is unknown?

and how is it stupid to say the best source of objective knowledge we have is mainstream scientific consensus?

im not against spirituality, im just against people taking their spiritual beliefs literally. spirituality is subjective, emotional, etc... it exists inside us, not outside us.

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by joecooool

intelligence that pervades all life? i consider that to be silly. there is no reason to think that the universe, subatomic particles, the fabric of spacetime, or anything other then biological brains, are intelligent.

intelligence isn't some grand mystical thing, its predicted that there will be robots that have higher intelligence then us within 50yrs

You know Joe, sod it, I don't actually care what you (or anyone else) believes. I consider your perspective to be equally silly, and I can't see any profit in trying to convince you otherwise. I am very happy for you to believe whatever you will.

Stay cool!

Jamie.

[joecooool]

you consider my perspective that the universe has not been proven to be intelligent and therefore belief that it is intelligent is unjustified, to be silly?

that is not silly, that is called factual, correct, rational, reasonable, evidential, normal, etc...

your belief that the universe is intelligent is silly. you dont even know what intelligence is. your mystified by it so you correlate that with another thing your mystified by: the universe

go study neurology, and cosmology. learn some real knowledge in your life, its not open minded to be ignorant

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by joecooool

you consider my perspective

No, I don't consider you perspective, full-stop; there's just no value in me doing so, sorry.

[joecooool]

sorry but its not my perceptive

it has yet to be proven or shown in anyway that the universe is intelligent

im just pointing that out.

viewing the universe as intelligent is purely subjective.

intelligence is a natural process inside us, and the universe is a large and amazing place on its own.

reality doesn't need fantasy

why isnt reality good enough for you, why juice it up with fantasy

why cant people just look up at the stars and be amazed without having to add fantasies onto them

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Jamie

No, I don't consider you perspective, full-stop; there's just no value in me doing so, sorry.

No value in considering someone else's perspective? That's rather self-centred, isn't it?

[JimOfferman]

Originally Posted by joecooool

it has yet to be proven or shown in anyway that the universe is intelligent

As it has yet to be proven or shown that the universe is not intelligent.

Our understanding of the universe is incomplete and as such we lack the means to prove or disprove either theory. Hence, both theories are, in fact, unprovable beliefs and neither is more valid than the other.

[joecooool]

saying the universe is intelligent is the extra claim, and therefore has the burden of proof

the default position is that it is not intelligent, until proven otherwise

the universe not being intelligent is the simpler self evident belief.

to say it is something more, and something against what is self evident requires proof

there is none and therefore belief that the universe is intelligent at this time is unjustified.

so that makes it a guess as far as objective knowledge goes. i dont mind various guesses, ideas, etc.. i just dont like them claimed to be more then that.

but the universe can be viewed as intelligent on a subjective basis, that is fine. like as a temporary subjective viewpoint, a means to an end, and such.

for example: saying things like: its hotter then hell out today. that is just a subjective veiwpoint, an analogy, etc... i dont mind if people say of view things subjectively for certain personal reasons.

i just dont like people confusing objectivity and subjectivity.

science gives us our objective knowledge. subjectivity is more like a tool for our personal use, not objectively true.

[JimOfferman]

Originally Posted by joecooool

the universe not being intelligent is the simpler self evident belief.

It most definitely is not the simpler belief. Looking at the behavior of particles and then explaining that with the laws of entropy is not simpler than saying that there must be some kind of intelligence at work there.

It is also not self evident in the objective sense. You may claim it is, but your claim is a subjective point of view.

so that makes it a guess as far as objective knowledge goes. i dont mind various guesses, ideas, etc.. i just dont like them claimed to be more then that.

I can understand. You prefer to deal in absolutes, true and false, black and white... a younger me would likely have sympathized with that, but my experience has taught me the universe is actually painted in shades of gray.

i just dont like people confusing objectivity and subjectivity.

Don't we all...

science gives us our objective knowledge.

No it doesn't. Virtually all science is based on subjective observation and can therefor not be called truly objective.

[joecooool]

the universe being intelligent is not the simpler choice. matter and energy exist, but to say that matter and energy exists AND is intelligent is the extra unproven claim. intelligence is nothing more then a system in animals heads for making more advanced decisions in their environment, its not some magical or special divine thing. attributing intelligence to god or the universe etc.. is simply using one thing you don't understand to support another thing you don't understand: cosmology.


i dont deal in black and whites, i keep my beliefs relative to the evidence on a percentage level. the more evidence the more i believe. the rest i consider either guesses, or subjective view points.


and the only reason science isn't "truly objective" to you is because you have used fantasy to put objectivity on an unreachable pedestal. so fine, i will simply say that science is the most objective method we have of acquiring knowledge. i dont need to prove that science is 100% philosophically objective to make my point that there is a difference between a real apple on the table and an idea of an apple in your head. the difference between science and religion is that science is that first apple, and religion is the second one. the imaginary one.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by joecooool

the universe being intelligent is not the simpler choice. matter and energy exist, but to say that matter and energy exists AND is intelligent is the extra unproven claim. intelligence is nothing more then a system in animals heads for making more advanced decisions in their environment.

I can appreciate that intelligence could be a biological/chemical process, but what are your thoughts on consciousness?

Here is a question for you:
Can you imagine a universe without consciousness?
If you say yes, then it can't be true, as you are using consciousness to view that universe in your imagination.
If you say no, then there is eternal/cognizant consciousness in the universe (or perhaps hovering around the periphery!).

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

No value in considering someone else's perspective? That's rather self-centred, isn't it?

I do condsider other peoples' perspectives on matters; however, if after some time, I find that person has nothing of value to offer me, or I can see no truth in what they say (or they are just spouting forth their own version of events, without reponse to my own points) ... then I soon lose interest in considering their perspective. Some people, I also find to be quite limited and fixed in their thinking, can you tell me what value there is in debating with such people?

Are you saying this is wrong of me, or self-centred? .. if so, then self-centred I am, and long may I remain so.

An able-sighted man and a blind man, converse about the colours to be found in a rainbow, but the blind man swears blind, that there's no such thing as 'colour' or things that can be seen, and shows no sign of budging on the matter. For how long should the able-sighted man try to open the eyes of the blind man?

[JimOfferman]

Originally Posted by joecooool

the rest i consider either guesses, or subjective view points.

Not only that, but you consider them to be false for the sole reason that they are not your views. Because you didn't see or read the evidence, it must be false.

You are right and all who disagree are wrong.

Clean and simple.

Black and white.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Jamie

I do condsider other peoples' perspectives on matters; however, if after some time, I find that person has nothing of value to offer me, or I can see no truth in what they say (or they are just spouting forth their own version of events, without reponse to my own points) ... then I soon lose interest in considering their perspective. Some people, I also find to be quite limited and fixed in their thinking, can you tell me what value there is in debating with such people?

Are you saying this is wrong of me, or self-centred? .. if so, then self-centred I am, and long may I remain so.

No, that isn't wrong of you, though it's a very different position from "No, I don't consider your perspective, full-stop", though I can see now that you didn't intend the "full-stop" to mean no consideration at all, but rather no further consideration.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Cantando

If you say yes, then it can't be true, as you are using consciousness to view that universe in your imagination.

It's true if the imagined universe is not this one, which of course it wouldn't be.

Originally Posted by Cantando

If you say no, then there is eternal/cognizant consciousness in the universe (or perhaps hovering around the periphery!).

Not if the consciousness under discussion is the type of consciousness familiar to most people who haven't explored spiritual concepts. I.e., one which is not eternal, and not an attribute of the universe as a whole, but an individual thing.

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

No, that isn't wrong of you, though it's a very different position from "No, I don't consider your perspective, full-stop", though I can see now that you didn't intend the "full-stop" to mean no consideration at all, but rather no further consideration.

We all have our own unique perspectives and perceptions as to the nature of reality (incl. god or whatever). I'd suggest that we're all just as wrong as each other. No-one has the answer. But then, I think we need to be true to ourselves, to apprecieate out own unique perspective; yet, it's ok to listen to others, of course it is, that good in some ways. But there also comes a point when you just feel, instinctively, that there's no more added value to be had from some other persons' point of view. It's not being unkind to that person, or saying you're right and they're wrong; simple that there's nothing of value in what they're saying, for you personally.

I have to say it, discussions on these issues (god etc), invariably provoke strong reactions in people. I love philospical debate (ususally), but really starting to feel I should steer clear of the god debate!

All the best,

Jamie.

[joecooool]

i keep my beliefs relative to the evidence, which is why im a materialist atheist.

i believe matter is the only thing that exists, and i dont believe in god

and i can back my position scientifically and philosophically

i enjoy objective knowledge more then subjective fantasies

[JimOfferman]

Good for you.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Jamie

But there also comes a point when you just feel, instinctively, that there's no more added value to be had from some other persons' point of view. It's not being unkind to that person, or saying you're right and they're wrong; simple that there's nothing of value in what they're saying, for you personally.

And it's when we reach this point that we need to be most careful that we're not misinterpreting either or both our instincts and their point of view... Otherwise we run the risk of shutting ourself off from someone or something important. (referring to potential situations like this, not this one specifically)

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

And it's when we reach this point that we need to be most careful that we're not misinterpreting either or both our instincts and their point of view... Otherwise we run the risk of shutting ourself off from someone or something important. (referring to potential situations like this, not this one specifically)

Yes, I agree, and also referring to potential situations like this, not this one, I say the opposite also holds true, that there's no value in perpetual opening yourself up to all and sundry, and to ideas that you've found not to be true ...

Do you trust your own inner core? Your own gut-instinct on these matters? Or not?

Simple as.

[jek2sv]

Originally Posted by DaveTyler

Personally I believe God is ALL, nothing can be seperate from God. I believe we can be one with this God when all illusionary seperation dissapears (enlightenment).
I think all is divine and love. So basically even the ants that crawls in the ground , bites you and annoys the ************ out of you is divine and has as much right as you to live. Ofcourse this is going extreme but killing any life form with out itbeing nessascary is wrong I think

I agree with you, I have the same point of view

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Not if the consciousness under discussion is the type of consciousness familiar to most people who haven't explored spiritual concepts. I.e., one which is not eternal, and not an attribute of the universe as a whole, but an individual thing.

Science only exists by virtue of consciousness being present to witness and observe.
Nothing exists outside of consciousness. Can it be proven otherwise?
If there is no consciousness, then there is nothing to behold.
There is consciousness.
It is not physical.
It has no beginning or end.
It is the silent witness.
If everyone meditated on this, they would come to realize this truth.