How many believe in God

[Michael Chui]

Ouch. I really did do badly.

Originally Posted by Hsiang-Lin

1) Science is the body of knowledge that points to increased repeatability.

No. The important bit about science is that it's an association of repeatability and predictability with the truth of causation. Science seeks an answer to the question of, "What causes this to happen?" by isolating possibilities.

Science is a method for determining truth.

Science is, in and of itself, an assumption. That it is possible at all is a matter of faith: a self-evident proposition. Some persons argue that God and/or the Flying Spaghetti Monster is "right there, changing the results" as scientists do carbon dating and such. That this does not happen is an article of faith: we assume by faith that external and invisible powers, professed and believed in by other persons, do not affect the empirical results of the tests we perform.

The specific bit about changing results is, "But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage." (source)

Originally Posted by Hsiang-Lin

2) Logic is the process by which we can judge the value of truth in a line of reasoning (but truth can be broken further into assumption)

Close. Logic is the process of "If truth, then truth; if false, dunno."

The truth isn't in a line of reasoning: the truth is in two places: at the beginning of the reasoning, and at the end. By agreement in the beginning, and by agreement that the line of reasoning is not fallacious (illogical), then we necessarily agree that the conclusion is true.

If I assume God, then I can draw conclusions from this. However, someone who doesn't assume God will have grounds to disagree with my conclusions.

But the initial assumption of God is, in and of itself, just that. An assumption.

Originally Posted by Hsiang-Lin

3) Faith is a self-evident proposition like science and logic.

Mostly correct. Faith is not a self-evident proposition. Faith is a synonym for "self-evident proposition". Faith is a belief without basis, unproven, unfounded, unarguable, but assumed to be true. That is the same as a self-evident proposition, which is a statement assumed to be true without proof or evidence beyond, "Well, duh!" which isn't evidence at all. "God exists" is such a statement: it is either true or false, but you cannot prove it under common definitions of God.

Originally Posted by Hsiang-Lin

Everything we know ultimately comes down to assumptions. Science, logic, and faith are self-evident propositions that derive from assumptions.

Good enough, but this shows me you don't understand.

Self-evident propositions cannot be derived. A proposition is either self-evident or derived. It is not both. There is a fuzziness here: a proposition may be self-evident to one person and derived to another. The distinction typically lies in whether or not the person has questioned their assumption.

I can say, "The sky is blue," and assume it to be true. But someone can tell me, "What you think of as the sky is incorrect, and what you think of as 'blue' is incorrect. In fact, the sky is green." In this case, he is making plain that the self-evident proposition was, in fact, derived from other assumptions: namely what the sky and blue are.

Originally Posted by Hsiang-Lin

I would go further than just saying all three are highly intertwined. In fact, based on your writing, I would go so far as to say the jump from assumption to truth can be described as faith.

No, they're intertwined like so:

Assumption (matter of faith): Logic works.
Assumption (matter of faith): Science is valid.

Alternatively, "Causation is meaningful." Alternatively, "Logical constructions yield truth from truth."

Originally Posted by Hsiang-Lin

This description serves to do exactly that, describe. Nothing else. It is certainly a sound description of what happens. But in terms of giving value and judgment, it is useless. Thus, I think making any beliefs about the existence or non-existence of God from this description provides no value.

Of course. Where did I even begin to suggest that you "make beliefs" about anything from this? The point of the Smoke and Mirrors essay was to point out to people how you make beliefs, and thus make it possible for them to have an avenue towards constructing them without relying on authority figures.

It is, in a sense, the Protestant revolution. The Bible is free for everyone to read: not just the clergy.

Is it really so hard to believe that a person would describe without ascribing value or judgment? That they may state facts without demanding that you believe as they do? Please tell me you're not that cynical; there are good people in the world: I like to think I'm among them.

[Nicholls]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Is it really so hard to believe that a person would describe without ascribing value or judgment? That they may state facts without demanding that you believe as they do? Please tell me you're not that cynical; there are good people in the world: I like to think I'm among them.

A stupid cynic would say there are no good people in the world. A clever cynic would point out morality is clearly subjective and therefore in an objective world does not exist, therefore by the universe's standards there are no good or bad people. So no, you're not a good person. But you're not a bad one either.

[Maguru]

In reality, I believe we are either good and bad or neither. Depends how you look at it.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Nicholls

A stupid cynic would say there are no good people in the world. A clever cynic would point out morality is clearly subjective and therefore in an objective world does not exist, therefore by the universe's standards there are no good or bad people. So no, you're not a good person. But you're not a bad one either.

That was my point. Thank you for clarifying cynicism.

[nightdiamond]

Hi All, I would much rather experience god and prove it to myself than believe in him or it. Then I wouldn't have to struggle with the debate of science/logic/faith which drives you batty! (Although I love these types of debates).

Believing in something like god without experiencing it seems to always create these types of struggles and insecurities, and we have to be satisfied with other people's opinions or ideas about god but it never seems to be enough does it?

For example the people who have near death experiences are convinced there is life after death because they've actually experienced it- there is no debate for them anymore.

If you were to actually experience god, like some people say they've experience the afterlife, then it seems that the debate about objective proof, logic and reason and faith doesn't even matter anymore.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Read closer to the agnostic creed. (I am, of course, nitpicking what Mark said, not what Hsiang-Lin said.) God is not based on an unprovable assumption. God, as defined as an incomprehensible, undefinable (though he most certainly is), etc., is either assumed or not.

I just wanted to clarify something before I get to the meat of the responses. My comment was that claims based on unprovable assumptions were problematic. In relation to God, the issue is the claim that It exists, a claim which is based on an unprovable assumption.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by nightdiamond

Hi All, I would much rather experience god and prove it to myself than believe in him or it. Then I wouldn't have to struggle with the debate of science/logic/faith which drives you batty! (Although I love these types of debates).

You wouldn't believe it from stuff like this, but these debates are the easy stuff. It's neither philosophy nor theology, both of which are intrinsically more difficult because they posit actual problems, and in both of which little things like the existence of God gets quite irrelevant (see Socrates' Euthyphro dilemma).

Which is why I will never discuss whether or not God exists. What God is, maybe. If you encourage me enough.

My objective was to explain to Hsiang-Lin (and anyone else who might be reading) what science was, as people have this annoying tendency to think of it as something else. It's hard for me to defend science or religion when the attacker knows nothing of either.

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

I just wanted to clarify something before I get to the meat of the responses. My comment was that claims based on unprovable assumptions were problematic. In relation to God, the issue is the claim that It exists, a claim which is based on an unprovable assumption.

Fine distinction; I missed it. Thanks for clarifying.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Hsiang-Lin

Let me try to understand what you are saying. You're saying God is based upon an unproveable assumption, hence it is simply speculation. True, but this is under the view of SCIENCE. Based on the scientific view, there is clearly not enough information to validate the existence of God.

As I pointed out above, it is the claim that God exists that is based on an unprovable assumption, not God itself. And it is only problematic when either a non-believer or a believer attempts to convince the other that their claim is the only valid one. A claim requires backing, validation, proof. There can't be any such proof of a claim based on an unprovable assumption.

From what you've said in your last few posts, it seems that you believe both science and faith have a place in this world. I agree with that. You seem to believe that many scientists inappropriately try to evaluate faith through a purely scientific lens. I also agree with that. The point I was attempting to make is that sometimes believers will attempt to convince others of their belief, and they use logic to do so. That use of logic is often inappropriate from the start due to disagreements on key assumptions.

Matters of faith don't require argument or support. Either you believe, or you don't, and your life is better or worse as a result. But many believers (including those who hold secular beliefs), are unwilling to leave it at that; they attempt to convert others. That's where logic and science come into play, often inappropriately. I think we can all agree on that. And the way to avoid that problem is to understand what logic, science and faith really are.

Originally Posted by nightdiamond

If you were to actually experience god, like some people say they've experience the afterlife, then it seems that the debate about objective proof, logic and reason and faith doesn't even matter anymore.

It would be interesting to have an experience which affected me so much that I became a believer. Though, truth be told, I really don't see it changing much. Yes, God exists. Now, pass me those MRI results...

[Michael Chui]

You guys might be interested in this hour-long episode on morality:

WNYC - Radio Lab: Morality (July 06, 2007)

[yellowtamarin]

Hi all, I just registered today, and so haven't read all the posts on this thread so my apologies if this has already been discussed.

It has been suggested that science explains the how but not the why, and God explains the why. I'd like to know how God explains why we exist? What is the answer? If the answer "is" God, ie if God is the reason we exist, what does that mean?

Why does God exist? Is "God" also the answer to that question? Doesn't make sense to me...

[nightdiamond]

I think when you at least prove or "see for yourself" that god is real the need for faith becomes less and the need to prove god exists dusappears. That in itself can take alot of stress out pondering if god is real and what the meaning of it all is.

The thing is at this point we can only prove it to ourselves- experience god for ourselves- rather than have everyone know god exists. If you experience god or whatever it is personally, you prove to yourself god is real and it no longer seems important to prove to others that god exists.

Then the arguements about logic, chicken and egg, scientific verification become less important. This is exactly how people who have had NDE's react after they've had one.

And I think that may be the secret to this arguement right there- check the "Astral travel" sections and at least it may seem close to some answer......

[Michael Chui]

Like I said, the question of whether or not God exists is irrelevant. And boring. Why bother with yes or no questions when there are so many more interesting ones that don't give a damn about it?

I take it you guys also loved the first Matrix movie and hated the subsequent two?

[yellowtamarin]

Originally Posted by nightdiamond

Then the arguements about logic, chicken and egg, scientific verification become less important.

Yep, it's always convienient how faith is used to not answer the important questions or try to make them "go away"...

Don't know if you were referring to me Michael Chui but I just posed some questions that I'd like to here the responses to from people who do believe in god. Personally, I do not believe.

[Michael Chui]

Well, in that case, I accept your apologies.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Like I said, the question of whether or not God exists is irrelevant. And boring. Why bother with yes or no questions when there are so many more interesting ones that don't give a damn about it?

I find the question of why people believe in God to be a very interesting one. And it's hard to answer that question without considering the question of God's existence.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

I find the question of why people believe in God to be a very interesting one. And it's hard to answer that question without considering the question of God's existence.

Not really. Yes, you have to consider it, but it's the same question as why people believe in gods, plural. Does Odin exist? I think he does. Just as I think the Christian God and the Jewish God exist. Both of them. Different. Or maybe I should say, "All 100 of them." But that's beside the point.

Why people believe in God has nothing to do with whether or not he exists. If he does, and he put a little Belief seed inside our heads that may or may not have grown, then understanding the basis of belief will naturally lead us to become aware of him.

The existence of God is an effect, not a cause, like most other yes or no questions. If you disagree, perhaps-- well, let's do that.

People say that God is important because he is the cause of this or that. Like morality. Or the universe. Or potatoes in Idaho. Or that new girl across the street. Fine. So, the return question is, if God didn't exist, would it change? That's a question you're not allowed to ask, because it's nonsensical to anyone who cares about the question of God's existence.

The people who think God exists say, "That's a stupid question."

The people who think he doesn't say, "That's a stupid question."

And the people who aren't sure, but spend their time wondering, say, "Hmmm... that's interesting." And they'll say the same thing in twenty years, because they still haven't made up their minds, they still care, and they still haven't gotten anywhere.

Doesn't sound like much of a cause to me. It's mental masturbation. It feels good. Hell, it makes you feel great. But it doesn't make any babies. Nothing comes out of it. It's a dead-end, no matter what the answer is.

[Advent Shade]

I don't believe in God but I'm far from an Anti-Theist. I find the mysticism and mystery of the physical and biological world far more entertaining and exciting then the banal story of the bible and other religious texts. So I chose to believe in a physical world predominated by physical laws which are impossible to break. How can one believe in a personal God with such a belief?

Perhaps I could be a Deist at some point in my life. At any rate, belief in a God who is capable of punishing you with eternal pain for some ill-conceived 'sin' is just stressful and terrifying. So my advice to anyone who does believe in this is simple; you can argue all you want about the theology of the Judeo-Christian Gods until you're blue in the face and I will happily join in but please - drop the whole heaven/hell thing. It just isn't good for your heart-rate. And nothing justifies terrifying young children with such ideologies.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Why people believe in God has nothing to do with whether or not he exists.

Ahh, sorry Michael, I wasn't clear, nor did I explain myself, and so I lead you in entirely the wrong direction.

I agree, pondering the question of God's existence is a dead end, at least in attempting to prove or disprove his existence. That's not what interests me most. I should have said it's hard for me to understand why people believe in God(s) without them pondering that question.

But the interesting part is less what their answers are and more why they come up with those answers, and why some believe so strongly, and why others are on the fence. And I'd like that question answered for beliefs as a whole, not just beliefs regarding God.

And while those answers may also not make babies, they may help encourage a common understanding that will allow us all to get on with it, and get on with the rest of our lives.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

I should have said it's hard for me to understand why people believe in God(s) without them pondering that question.

Oh. That's an interesting perspective. Well, I still disagree, but not nearly as strongly; it's certainly valid in its own right.

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

And while those answers may also not make babies, they may help encourage a common understanding that will allow us all to get on with it, and get on with the rest of our lives.

I'd consider that a very beautiful baby.

[nightdiamond]

My very point. If you had some sort of experience with the "other side" or god or whatever you want to call it, you don't even need faith.

I DON'T want to just have faith in god, I want to KNOW for sure. Otherwise I'll always ask the question, "does god exist". I don't want to believe in god, I want to KNOW god exist.

Sometimes faith can be just another word for belief or confidence. Think of it as a level, a belief level or a confidence level.

I can't know god exists from other people's ideas or descriptions of god, otherwise it's just a belief again.

The same issue creeps up when you follow absolute materialism. When you ponder if the universe started with nothing, no intelligence, no consciousness, no purpose, then why hasn't it remained this way to this very second? Nothingness. I have no problem with that because that is exactly what I would expect from a universe with no activity, intelligence, or purpose.

Yet there is activity, life, intelligence, consciousness. For some strange reason all this came out of nothingness. Something caused it to happen. A bunch or weird chain reactions led to "this" An odd thing to ponder.

By the way, I love this debate, keep it going....

[Advent Shade]

Yet there is activity, life, intelligence, consciousness. For some strange reason all this came out of nothingness. Something caused it to happen. A bunch or weird chain reactions led to "this" An odd thing to ponder.

It depends what version of events you accept. For example the universe contracting and expanding continuously for infinity in either direction, while it might not be a very satisfying explanation, certainly allows for this to happen. And I think you would have to ask the same thing if you considered consciousness - where did the original consciousness come from? Is it like the universe, forever expanding in either directions?

Of course, I'm not a subjectivist so I'm hardly an authority on the subject.

[Michael Chui]

Faith is absolutely necessary. Nothing is certain except what you choose to be certain about. Without solidity of perceived truth to begin from, you cannot form conclusions, you cannot make progress. If you directly experience God, how do you know that you have? The assumptions you make by which you determine whether or not you have is precisely what faith is.

[Advent Shade]

Faith is absolutely necessary.

2 + 2 = 4

No faith required.

[Chinese Dragon]

My reasons for believing in God are simple:

1) I define God as the entity that created the universe. The concept that that energy cannot be created yet the universe had a beginning it contridictory. That's why I think some outside force had to start the process. Which is by I believe science is flawed, so my belief system is Catholcism mixed with Subjective Reality.

2) If you believe in God and God exists, you gain eternal life. If it turns out God doesn't exist, you lose nothing. On the other hand, if you don't believe in God and God exists you have to stay in purgatory for awhile, and if it turns out he doesn't you'll win nothing. Would you rather have a might win or a might lose?

3) I have found that me being a Catholic is more empowering than being an atheist.

Originally Posted by Advent Shade

2 + 2 = 4

No faith required.

lol, you obviously have faith that the figure "2" means to other people what you think of as the number two and "4" means what you think of as the number four. If I were to teach my kid that the numbers go like:

1 3 2 4 5 6 7 8,

then in their number system:

3 + 3 = 4

And they could become a brilliant mathematican as long as they don't talk to other people about math. There's no law that says you can't swap "2" and "3" and have the math still work.

Food for thought

[Maguru]

Regarding no.2: This god you are referring to is only available at your death. Surely a god (loving creator) would be availble in your life? A belief such as no.2 is a fear-based belief and not very encouraging. If you do have god in your life in the here and now and it isn't a fear based belief about the hereafter, I and others would love to hear it.

Originally Posted by Chinese Dragon

My reasons for believing in God are simple:

1) I define God as the entity that created the universe. The concept that that energy cannot be created yet the universe had a beginning it contridictory. That's why I think some outside force had to start the process. Which is by I believe science is flawed, so my belief system is Catholcism mixed with Subjective Reality.

2) If you believe in God and God exists, you gain eternal life. If it turns out God doesn't exist, you lose nothing. On the other hand, if you don't believe in God and God exists you have to stay in purgatory for awhile, and if it turns out he doesn't you'll win nothing. Would you rather have a might win or a might lose?

3) I have found that me being a Catholic is more empowering than being an atheist.



lol, you obviously have faith that the figure "2" means to other people what you think of as the number two and "4" means what you think of as the number four. If I were to teach my kid that the numbers go like:

1 3 2 4 5 6 7 8,

then in their number system:

3 + 3 = 4

And they could become a brilliant mathematican as long as they don't talk to other people about math. There's no law that says you can't swap "2" and "3" and have the math still work.

Food for thought

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Chinese Dragon

1) I define God as the entity that created the universe. The concept that that energy cannot be created yet the universe had a beginning it contridictory. That's why I think some outside force had to start the process. Which is by I believe science is flawed, so my belief system is Catholcism mixed with Subjective Reality.

I think you misunderstand science. Science does not say energy cannot be created, nor does it say the universe had a beginning. Those are the theories of scientists. Science is the process of forming and validating those theories through observation and experimentation. Science is also the body of knowledge gathered from that observation and experimentation.

And as Advent Shade pointed out, some theories propose that the universe has always been expanding and contracting. There could be infinite Big Bangs in the history of the universe. That doesn't contradict the theory that energy cannot be created.

[nightdiamond]

Faith is absolutely necessary.

2 + 2 = 4

No faith required.

Faith has so many different definitions applied to it that it is why I use the level example. The higher the faith level the stronger your belief level. The lower your faith level the weaker your belief level is. And this can be reversed as well.

2+2=4 can be verfied, or directly observed or experienced so it isn't necessary to apply faith to it. It can almost be taken for granted because it is so self evident.

And that again is exactly my point: if you have some type of experience with "god" or "the other side" for example, a psychic vision that turns out to be true, like foreseeing a future event, or a past life experience that is actually verified and baffles scientists, then for the person who experienced it, it becomes like 2+2= 4; no faith is needed for something he or she has actually EXPERIENCED it.

The skeptic hasn't experienced it.... so his or her faith level is low and so on and so on. Arguing and discussing the logic or illogic of god's existence doesn't give you an experience of god, so it will always have to be a matter of belief or disbelief between these two sides.

[Advent Shade]

Chinese Dragon that's different, you've merely changed the context of the situation and changed certain definitions. Even in your example 2 + 2 = 4, it's just that the number 3 represent's 2.

Think of it this way - a Christian can refer to God as God or they could call him Yahweh, Jesus etc. etc. They all mean the same thing even if they sound distinctly different.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by nightdiamond

2+2=4 can be verfied, or directly observed or experienced so it isn't necessary to apply faith to it. It can almost be taken for granted because it is so self evident.

Actually, 2 + 2 = 4 by definition. And definitions are inherently faith-based.

[Chinese Dragon]

Originally Posted by Maguru

A belief such as no.2 is a fear-based belief and not very encouraging.

Sorry but number 2 is not fear-based. It's just being intelligent. There's no downside to believing in God, but a probable upside. Who wouldn't take a chance like that?

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Science does not say energy cannot be created, nor does it say the universe had a beginning.

I'm sorry to say, but yes it does. Science is about obtaining knowledge by using the scientific method. And guess what, theories are formed by using... wait for it... the scientific method. Even if the definition of science doesn't actually come out and say those things doesn't mean the scientific method doesn't imply them. Scientific theories are defined as hypothesises that are supported by an overwhelming set of data. True, there are theories that have died out due to an overwhelming set of data against it, the steady state theory to name one, but generally theories scientists believe in today are correct or correct enough to work. Theory of gravity, theory of relatively, theory of quantum physics. These theories are the framework for many other branches of science. But when it comes to explaining things like God, sometimes it's better to just have faith because there's really no proof for or against it. Just choose what's more empowering.

Originally Posted by Advent Shade

Think of it this way - a Christian can refer to God as God or they could call him Yahweh, Jesus etc. etc. They all mean the same thing even if they sound distinctly different.

Yes, that is why I give myself a solid definition of God. When I think of God I may use many names but they all mean the same thing. I was just trying to make a point that we have faith that other people live in the same mathematical context that we do. There's no proof of that so we make assumptions - a leap of faith.