Is there a God?

[legend]

The cliffnotes of reasons I do not believe in a God:

• Humanity has very little idea about how the universe exists as it does. There is a sea of possible explanations, mostly filled with possibilities we haven't even considered. Even if we treated them all as "equally good" any one of them is unlikely to be it. The position of "I don't know" over this sea of possibilities implies that any specific idea like "a god exists and made the universe" is probably not it.
• "God did it" in the abstract isn't actually an explanation of anything. It's "not even wrong," yet adds a whole slew of assumptions, which makes it a worse than useless model.
• Specific claims of any specific God's deeds are regularly inconsistent with observation.
• Specific claims about any specific God's nature are regularly inconsistent with each other.
• The more we learn about the universe, the weirder it is, and the notion of a God is far too much of a dumb early man idea to match the trend.

[Phaseknox]

 

[best3444]

I appreciate some of the answers in here. 

[stepee]

I love XTC

[Nokra]

5 hours ago, TheLeon said:

What if God was one of us? 

 

[AbsolutSurgen]

23 hours ago, best3444 said:

@Commissar SFLUFAN this is for you. Short video but a good watch. 

 

 

This really feels like a middle-school level analysis of one of St. Thomas Aquinas's arguments -- and IMHO, this guy really doesn't understand most of the science he's trying to reference.  

It's been decades since I spent any time on the philosophy of the existence of god, but I haven't ever found one that was even remotely satisfying to me -- and I've read arguments from some pretty sophisticated philosophers.  If you want to believe, you have to do it based on faith alone -- because there isn't a coherent argument that can stand up to any scientific/philosophical scrutiny.  [Similarly, it's also virtually impossible to prove the nonexistence of God (or almost anything else).]

If you're looking at reasons to believe in God, I think Pascal's Wager is fascinating. 

[legend]

38 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

This really feels like a middle-school level analysis of one of St. Thomas Aquinas's arguments -- and IMHO, this guy really doesn't understand most of the science he's trying to reference.  

It's been decades since I spent any time on the philosophy of the existence of god, but I haven't ever found one that was even remotely satisfying to me -- and I've read arguments from some pretty sophisticated philosophers.  If you want to believe, you have to do it based on faith alone -- because there isn't a coherent argument that can stand up to any scientific/philosophical scrutiny.  [Similarly, it's also virtually impossible to prove the nonexistence of God (or almost anything else).]

If you're looking at reasons to believe in God, I think Pascal's Wager is fascinating. 

 

Ooph, I would not point to Pascal's wager as a good argument. I'm not sure I would for any God argument, but Pascal's wager generally sucks   I would stick with your first part: you either have faith because you feel compelled to believe or you don't. If you're looking for justification for your belief in God, you'll only find mental gymnastics.

[AbsolutSurgen]

Just now, legend said:

 

Ooph, I would not point to Pascal's wager as a good argument. I'm not sure I would for any God argument, but Pascal's wager generally sucks   I would stick with your first part: you either have faith because you feel compelled to believe or you don't. If you're looking for justification for your belief in God, you'll only find mental gymnastics.

I'll beg to differ.  Pascal's wager attacks it from a different angle than most others, in that it doesn't try to prove god actually exists, but attempts to provide a rational argument for why you should have faith -- at least it's mostly internally coherent, which IMHO isn't something I can say for most of the other arguments.

 

The intelligent design theory -- in where complexity means there has to be an intelligent designer falls apart when there are a whole series of scientific theories that show how complexity can develop without one.  

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

I'll also echo what @AbsolutSurgen said - I'm generally fine with Pascal's Wager being the "break glass in case of emergency" argument in favor of having faith in the existence of God rather than as an argument that proves the actual existence of God.

[Keyser_Soze]

2 hours ago, legend said:

The cliffnotes of reasons I do not believe in a God:

• Humanity has very little idea about how the universe exists as it does. There is a sea of possible explanations, mostly filled with possibilities we haven't even considered. Even if we treated them all as "equally good" any one of them is unlikely to be it. The position of "I don't know" over this sea of possibilities implies that any specific idea like "a god exists and made the universe" is probably not it.
• "God did it" in the abstract isn't actually an explanation of anything. It's "not even wrong," yet adds a whole slew of assumptions, which makes it a worse than useless model.
• Specific claims of any specific God's deeds are regularly inconsistent with observation.
• Specific claims about any specific God's nature are regularly inconsistent with each other.
• The more we learn about the universe, the weirder it is, and the notion of a God is far too much of a dumb early man idea to match the trend.

 

Oh yeah, well God helped me win a football game over some other people. God didn't want those other people to win the game. So I thank God for that.

[legend]

32 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

I'll beg to differ.  Pascal's wager attacks it from a different angle than most others, in that it doesn't try to prove god actually exists, but attempts to provide a rational argument for why you should have faith -- at least it's mostly internally coherent, which IMHO isn't something I can say for most of the other arguments.

 

The intelligent design theory -- in where complexity means there has to be an intelligent designer falls apart when there are a whole series of scientific theories that show how complexity can develop without one.  

 

It's not "internally consistent" unless you make a whole bunch of other truly absurd assumptions, including "God counts fake belief as real" and "other hypothetical gods who would punish you for false belief are impossible."

 

It's vague rhetoric pretending to be rigorous by using the language of probability, but it is not. We should not celebrate this kind of pseudoscience but condemn it for the farce that it is.

[AbsolutSurgen]

4 minutes ago, legend said:

 

It's not "internally consistent" unless you make a whole bunch of other truly absurd assumptions, including "God counts fake belief as real" and "other hypothetical gods who would punish you for false belief are impossible."

 

It's vague rhetoric pretending to be rigorous by using the language of probability, but it is not.

It's been more than 25 years since I read it -- so my memory is a bit fuzzy. However, my recollection was that he argued if you acted like you believed in God, and tried in good faith to believe, eventually you would.

As I don't believe in God, I don't think the argument holds up largely for the reason of having to pick "A God" and knowing how to pick the right one.  But, I still believe it is a fascinating thought exercise.  And in the whole history of philosopher's trying to provide a framework for religion, Pascal's Wager was the only one that stuck with me. [Particularly given the fact that I have an economics degree.]

[Biggie]

23 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

Oh yeah, well God helped me win a football game over some other people. God didn't want those other people to win the game. So I thank God for that.

That’s not on God. That’s on the dumbass football player with a middle school education. 

[legend]

3 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

It's been more than 25 years since I read it -- so my memory is a bit fuzzy. However, my recollection was that he argued if you acted like you believed in God, and tried in good faith to believe, eventually you would.

As I don't believe in God, I don't think the argument holds up largely for the reason of having to pick "A God" and knowing how to pick the right one.  But, I still believe it is a fascinating thought exercise.

 

There are actual probability thought exercises that are meaningful and useful to point to instead! Pascal's wager does active damage by expressing itself as if it were proper probabilistic reasoning when it's anything but. It practically assumes the answer before it begins. It's an exemplar of pseudoscientific thinking and what not to do. Given how bad people are at thinking clearly I really don't want to encourage more bad thinking like it by highlighting it as something reasonable.

 

 

3 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

And in the whole history of philosopher's trying to provide a framework for religion, Pascal's Wager was the only one that stuck with me. [Particularly given the fact that I have an economics degree.]

 

Feels like we're choosing between a turd and vomit, but I guess everyone's got their own taste  

[best3444]

@Biggie @CastlevaniaNut18 I change my mind. I believe in God and Jesus now. I'm back to being a conservative now, too.

 

Spoiler

 

[Biggie]

3 minutes ago, best3444 said:

@Biggie @CastlevaniaNut18 I change my mind. I believe in God and Jesus now. I'm back to being a conservative now, too.

 

  Hide contents

 

[unogueen]

All this universe to be the only ones and we're not even in the centre, not even close. So if there is design we are nowhere near understanding it. And if you consider the moral argument you can offload most of that logic to try not to get your ass kicked.

[gamer.tv]

On 8/25/2023 at 8:28 PM, best3444 said:

@Biggie @CastlevaniaNut18 I change my mind. I believe in God and Jesus now. I'm back to being a conservative now, too.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

When all is well - I’d be interested to hear how one goes from a god-fearing conservative, to an liberal atheist - though a bit of me thinks I already know the answer.

[CastlevaniaNut18]

1 minute ago, gamer.tv said:

When all is well - I’d be interested to hear how one goes from a god-fearing conservative, to a liberal atheist - though a bit of me thinks I already know the answer.

 I did! But I was also in my earlier 20s and it took a few years to evolve. 

[Biggie]

1 hour ago, gamer.tv said:

When all is well - I’d be interested to hear how one goes from a god-fearing conservative, to a liberal atheist - though a bit of me thinks I already know the answer.

He is unstable 

[Biggie]

1 hour ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

 I did! But I was also in my earlier 20s and it took a few years to evolve. 

Did you do it in a few days on a message board lol

[best3444]

12 hours ago, gamer.tv said:

When all is well - I’d be interested to hear how one goes from a god-fearing conservative, to an liberal atheist - though a bit of me thinks I already know the answer.

 

Um, I was being sarcastic from another thread. If you don't understand something don't comment.

 

10 hours ago, Biggie said:

He is unstable 

 

I'm as stable as any of us are. You might want to look in the mirror if it actually fits in the mirror image. 

[Biggie]

 

[GeneticBlueprint]

I’ve gone from absolute certainty about God, to uncertainty, to agnostic, to full on atheist, all the way to militant anti-god/religion. I fluctuate between those last three depending on my mood. I just watched Sins of Our Mother on Netflix which hit kind of close to home. I was aware of the story at a superficial level but hearing the gory details was agonizing. So I’m in the anti mood the past few days. 
 

But still… I do find some sense of comfort and connection when participating in something like a catholic mass. I guess I’m just fascinated by something that people have been doing for hundreds and hundreds of years. 

[Biggie]

27 minutes ago, GeneticBlueprint said:

I’ve gone from absolute certainty about God, to uncertainty, to agnostic, to full on atheist, all the way to militant anti-god/religion. I fluctuate between those last three depending on my mood. I just watched Sins of Our Mother on Netflix which hit kind of close to home. I was aware of the story at a superficial level but hearing the gory details was agonizing. So I’m in the anti mood the past few days. 
 

But still… I do find some sense of comfort and connection when participating in something like a catholic mass. I guess I’m just fascinated by something that people have been doing for hundreds and hundreds of years. 

Being a Catholic, going thru Sunday school, altar boy, confirmation, etc. I can say without a doubt if you have seen one catholic mass you’ve seen them all. 

[GeneticBlueprint]

12 minutes ago, Biggie said:

Being a Catholic, going thru Sunday school, altar boy, confirmation, etc. I can say without a doubt if you have seen one catholic mass you’ve seen them all. 

I don’t doubt that. Which is why the two or three times per year that I go* it’s right there at my limit. 

*My brother is somewhat of a well-known organ player in the organ world and he gets invited to play at various places for different services and events

[DPCyric]

Yes and when I die I expect to find him laughing.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

On 8/29/2023 at 9:14 PM, GeneticBlueprint said:

But still… I do find some sense of comfort and connection when participating in something like a catholic mass. I guess I’m just fascinated by something that people have been doing for hundreds and hundreds of years. 

 

Attend an Orthodox Divine Liturgy sometime if you want to participate in something that really hasn't changed in hundreds of years!

 

The Orthodox once had a rather violent schism over whether the Sign of the Cross should be made with two fingers or three fingers.

[DPCyric]

4 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

Attend an Orthodox Divine Liturgy sometime if you want to participate in something that really hasn't changed in hundreds of years!

 

The Orthodox once had a rather violent schism over whether the Sign of the Cross should be made with two fingers or three fingers.

 

I have a Serbian friend who is Orthodox I'm super interested in learning about their traditions from what little I've heard/seen from him.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

36 minutes ago, DPCyric said:

 

I have a Serbian friend who is Orthodox I'm super interested in learning about their traditions from what little I've heard/seen from him.

 

It's similar enough to Roman Catholicism to be very recognizable as being part of the same ecclesiastical tradition, but different enough to stand apart from it.

[DPCyric]

1 hour ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

It's similar enough to Roman Catholicism to be very recognizable as being part of the same ecclesiastical tradition, but different enough to stand apart from it.

 

While I was working at a Catholic printing company I got the opportunity to see Knights Templar and all the other crazy stuff at an event celebrating the 100th anniversary of the company (and a free bar with top shelf liquor afterwards of course!)  

[GeneticBlueprint]

1 hour ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

Attend an Orthodox Divine Liturgy sometime if you want to participate in something that really hasn't changed in hundreds of years!

 

The Orthodox once had a rather violent schism over whether the Sign of the Cross should be made with two fingers or three fingers.

There’s a Russian Orthodox church a few blocks from my house. Maybe I’ll check it out some time. 

[Fizzzzle]

For the last couple thousand years, church was how people congregated on a regular basis. It served the function of a meeting place of neighbors. If you didn't attend church, it kind of meant you didn't want to associate with those around you, which made you suspicious. The actual religiosity of the ritual was secondary. That's one of the reasons Catholics were looked down on for a long time in the US - they didn't go to the same churches as everyone else. Kind of like Mormons now - "what, you think you're better than us?!"

 

It makes sense that a lot of people throughout history went to church even if they didn't necessarily believe in the shit. Church had a secondary function of being a town hall meeting every Sunday, and if you didn't go, people would ask questions. My grandfather was one of those people. He didn't even believe in God, but he still went to church every Sunday and sang their hymns and shit.

 

The prevalence of the internet and people being able to connect more without the church has made the church less necessary along with the prevalence of single-family home zon- AM I ABOUT TO TURN THIS INTO URBANISM, FUCK YEEEEAAHHHHHH I AM

 

The isolating effects of the suburban life mixed with the internet which negates the need for church is a breeding ground for idiots finding Facebook groups about conspiracy theories. We do still need a town hall or a public setting where people still see and interact with each other.