How Can Anyone Believe in God?

[arrowhead]

Can you prove to me that all "hard core" scientist are athiest?

religion goes against everything science stands for

and I suppose these people waist a huge portion of there life pretending to be blind until they are like "lets be cool and open our eyes for the first time!" in church? That is an odd way to look at things.

you know what else is odd? having a magical all knowing, all powerful, and all loving man in the sky performing miracles to random people in situations that cannot be scientifically verified but then not doing anything about all the violence, disease, and injustice going on in the world.

 

[cman]

Can you prove to me that all "hard core" scientist are athiest?

and I suppose these people waist a huge portion of there life pretending to be blind until they are like "lets be cool and open our eyes for the first time!" in church? That is an odd way to look at things.

Approximately 93% of all scientists in the National Academy of Sciences (essentially the elite scientists) are either athiest or agnostic. Only 7% are theists, and not all of those are christian.

Not ALL top scientists lack belief, but a vast majority do.

http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/jesus/intelligence & religion.htm

 

[snex]

AIDS the isaiah "born of a virgin" prophecy is exactly the kind of thing that christians never bothered to read. it is NOT a messianic prophecy (ie, it is not a prophecy about the messiah). read the entire chapter - it has nothing to do with predicting the messiah AT ALL. furthermore, the whole "born of a virgin" thing doesnt exist in the earliest gospel - it only shows up in matthew and luke.

and by the way, most of the early converts to christianity were not jews, but gentiles. the letters of paul were mostly written to gentiles.

 

[yossarian22]

any given thing is always an object.

Garbage. Show me freedom as an object. By "thing" I assume you mean predicate, in which case we are back to our old discussion.
[

no, its a cheap rhetorical trick because it evades my challenge while still trying to maintain the appearance of having met it.

He did meet it. You really need to learn what "coherent" means before you start throwing it around.

An incoherent idea contradicts itself fundamentally, either by injecting doubt into itself (see skepticism and arguably naturalism) or by blatantly contradicting itself. Adumbrodeus' definition did neither.

"all that exists" is the only sensible definition of "natural" - which is why a coherent definition of "supernatural" is not possible. how can something exist and yet not be natural?

This is disingenuous garbage. Go ask any philosophy major for a coherent definition of supernatural while operating under metaphysical naturalism, and I guarantee that you will get laughed at.

Here is one "An action that defies natural processes".

Don't pretend to be a genius and retort with "But how can you test it with science?". By its very nature the supernatural can't be tested by science. Operating under naturalism, the supernatural automatically becomes false, but that is to be expected because (big shocker here) naturalism either explicitly or implicitly rejects the supernatural. (Metaphysical vs methodological0. Asking somebody to provide a definition for the supernatural while assuming naturalism is equivalent of telling somebody to bring a toothpick to a gunfight.

You can't prove your system without resorting to circular reasoning, so please don't start yelling about how reductionist materialism is correct.

 

[arrowhead]

how do you define natural? if it's the already accepted definition, supernatural cannot have a coherent definition. if you chose to redefine natural, then there really isn't a point to this debate.

also, what is the point of acknowledging the existence of a supernatural if it cannot be tested by science?

 

[AltF4]

It's really a simple case to make:

-Natural things are those which are made of matter. (Have mass)
-Matter can only interact with other matter, and only in its immediate surroundings. (Principle of locality, and thus causality.)

Thus everything which you have ever had interactions with (on any level) have always ever been natural.

There may indeed be a "supernatural" world, where objects exist without containing mass. But this is not our world, and that world does not interact with ours. The existence of a supernatural world is unfalsifiable.

 

[snex]

Garbage. Show me freedom as an object. By "thing" I assume you mean predicate, in which case we are back to our old discussion.

i believe you were already trashed on this point. "freedom" as a thing DOESNT exist. "freedom" is a description of how things behave.

He did meet it. You really need to learn what "coherent" means before you start throwing it around.

An incoherent idea contradicts itself fundamentally, either by injecting doubt into itself (see skepticism and arguably naturalism) or by blatantly contradicting itself. Adumbrodeus' definition did neither.

im not the one who needs to learn what "incoherent" means. self-contradiction is only one means that can render something incoherent. but it isnt the only thing. all something needs to be incoherent is a lack of coherency. the idea of "yellow sound waves" contains no self-contradictions, but it is incoherent.

This is disingenuous garbage. Go ask any philosophy major for a coherent definition of supernatural while operating under metaphysical naturalism, and I guarantee that you will get laughed at.

people often laugh at questions that are too challenging for them to answer. its a coping mechanism.

Here is one "An action that defies natural processes".

uh huh, and whats a "natural process" under your definition?

Don't pretend to be a genius and retort with "But how can you test it with science?". By its very nature the supernatural can't be tested by science. Operating under naturalism, the supernatural automatically becomes false, but that is to be expected because (big shocker here) naturalism either explicitly or implicitly rejects the supernatural. (Metaphysical vs methodological0. Asking somebody to provide a definition for the supernatural while assuming naturalism is equivalent of telling somebody to bring a toothpick to a gunfight.

You can't prove your system without resorting to circular reasoning, so please don't start yelling about how reductionist materialism is correct.

im not operating under any assumptions, im asking you to provide a coherent definition of "supernatural." so far you have what seems to be a start, except it contains other concepts that you need to define before we can proceed. and i bet that once you attempt to define those concepts youll see why your definition is incoherent (or not, but ill point it out to you anyway).

 

[yossarian22]

how do you define natural? if it's the already accepted definition, supernatural cannot have a coherent definition. if you chose to redefine natural, then there really isn't a point to this debate.

Thanks for that useless bit of insight.
I cannot operate under a reductionist materialist point of view and retain the supernatural. Asking me to do so is disingenuous.

also, what is the point of acknowledging the existence of a supernatural if it cannot be tested by science?

It allows for a system to be remarkably robust against the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism

It's really a simple case to make:

-Natural things are those which are made of matter. (Have mass)
-Matter can only interact with other matter, and only in its immediate surroundings. (Principle of locality, and thus causality.)

Thus everything which you have ever had interactions with (on any level) have always ever been natural.

Who says something that is supernatural (by definition above natural) is bound by any of these rules
I will agree that there would be no way to differentiate between a purely natural event and a supernatural event, making it unfalsifiable. The only use for the supernatural is EAAN, but it seems remarkably hollow to just appeal to the supernatural purely for the purpose of saving a system from incoherency.

I have said several times that I am a naturalist, which leads to some random interesting problem.

i believe you were already trashed on this point.

No, I couldn't respond for other reasons and I have no clue where my last post was. I am fine resuming the debate, but, if I remember correctly, you were simply yelling the same thing over and over again.

im not the one who needs to learn what "incoherent" means. self-contradiction is only one means that can render something incoherent. but it isnt the only thing.

Yes it is. We are talking philosophy, so throw your useless colloquial definitions out the window.

people often laugh at questions that are too challenging for them to answer. its a coping mechanism.

They will laugh because it is entirely idiotic. Its like asking me to be 100% precise while operating under fuzzy logic. The question is not hard; it is idiotic. Naturalism rejects the supernatural, so it is not surprising at all that. If it allowed for the existence of the supernatural, it would be incoherent.

uh huh, and whats a "natural process" under your definition?

Don't be obtuse.

I would like to emphasize that
1: I am not operating under naturalism
2: Falsifiability is not an acceptable criterion for coherency
3: Incoherency means fundamentally contradictory
4: I am NOT operating under naturalism

You can use whatever definition of natural process you want, so long as it is not "all processes" or something similarly inane.

 

[snex]

Yes it is. We are talking philosophy, so throw your useless colloquial definitions out the window.

lol! sorry pal but you are just plain wrong here. i gave you a perfect example that you failed to address. you even snipped it out of your reply so it would appear that you replied to my entire post when in fact you did not.

They will laugh because it is entirely idiotic. Its like asking me to be 100% precise while operating under fuzzy logic. The question is not hard; it is idiotic. Naturalism rejects the supernatural, so it is not surprising at all that. If it allowed for the existence of the supernatural, it would be incoherent.

or maybe they will laugh because, just like you, they will be unable to meet the challenge.

Don't be obtuse.

I would like to emphasize that
1: I am not operating under naturalism
2: Falsifiability is not an acceptable criterion for coherency
3: Incoherency means fundamentally contradictory
4: I am NOT operating under naturalism

You can use whatever definition of natural process you want, so long as it is not "all processes" or something similarly inane.

none of this addresses what i asked for. what is a "natural process" as you used the term in your definition of "supernatural?" come on, if this is so basic that introductory philosophy students would laugh at it, why cant you just answer the question?

 

[yossarian22]

lol!

I find it extremely difficult to take a post with "lol" in it seriously.

sorry pal but you are just plain wrong here. i gave you a perfect example that you failed to address. you even snipped it out of your reply so it would appear that you replied to my entire post when in fact you did not.

I snipped it out because it was summarily irrelevant to coherency as a measure of philosophical rigor. Yellow implies visual, while sound waves imply auditory, so your example merely is nonsensical, not incoherent.

or maybe they will laugh because, just like you, they will be unable to meet the challenge.

Only an idiot thinks a Catch 22 argument proves anything but the sheer incompetence of the person who drafted it

none of this addresses what i asked for. what is a "natural process" as you used the term in your definition of "supernatural?" come on,

I said use any definition you want, so long as we are not operating under idiotic definitions of "All processes" or defining nature as everything.

if this is so basic that introductory philosophy students would laugh at it, why cant you just answer the question?

I did. The question of the natural is not something a beginning philosophy student would laugh at. It is the idiotic request of defining the supernatural under naturalistic lines of thought.

 

[arrowhead]

I said use any definition you want, so long as we are not operating under idiotic definitions of "All processes" or defining nature as everything.

you mean "use any definition you want as long as it doesn't contradict what i'm saying"

really, all you do is redefine terms and try to argue with them. it's getting old. you don't even tell us what your definitions are. "anything" isn't specific enough.

 

[snex]

I find it extremely difficult to take a post with "lol" in it seriously.

then get out. nobody has to meet your posting standards. if you dont like the way people post here, you are free to exit.

I snipped it out because it was summarily irrelevant to coherency as a measure of philosophical rigor. Yellow implies visual, while sound waves imply auditory, so your example merely is nonsensical, not incoherent.

you snipped it because it demonstrates that you are wrong. something that is nonsensical in the way my example shows *is* incoherent. you dont seem to know the difference between consistency and coherency. pro-tip - they arent the same thing.

Only an idiot thinks a Catch 22 argument proves anything but the sheer incompetence of the person who drafted it

only an idiot thinks that laughter at his opponent will suffice to win a debate. can you answer the challenge or cant you? the rest of your post indicates that you cannot.

I said use any definition you want, so long as we are not operating under idiotic definitions of "All processes" or defining nature as everything.

ok, then the definition i use is "fnarfle zorknid blagnip." now how does this support your point? oh right, it doesnt because i just made it up.

quit jerking us around and give us the definition YOU are using, since YOU are the one that defined "supernatural" as something that defies natural processes. in other words, supernatural objects are defying something. what is it that they are defying? why cant you tell us?

I did. The question of the natural is not something a beginning philosophy student would laugh at. It is the idiotic request of defining the supernatural under naturalistic lines of thought.

except im not using any lines of thought at all yet - im asking you to define your terms before i critique the problems that no doubt will follow from them. if you cant even define your terms, you dont belong in the debate hall.

 

[yossarian22]

you mean "use any definition you want as long as it doesn't contradict what i'm saying".

When you accept a different epistemology, you throw out all your previous systems baggage. All of it. So don't whine about how I refuse to use a reductionists term. It is like a Humean whining about what I consider knowledge.

then get out. nobody has to meet your posting standards. if you dont like the way people post here, you are free to exit.

Nobody said you had to meet my standards.

you snipped it because it demonstrates that you are wrong.

No, I will say this again.
I snipped it because nonsensical is in no way equates to incoherent. That is it. Go read an introductory philosophy book.

I snipped the rest because it is irrelevant.

only an idiot thinks that laughter at his opponent will suffice to win a debate. can you answer the challenge or cant you? the rest of your post indicates that you cannot.

Let's make a deal. I will do what you ask if you can prove the existence of matter under solipsism.

Oh wait, you can't because because solipsism states that nothing exists but the mind. You lose.
Do you see how absolutely ****ing ******** that is? Your "challenge" is the same thing.

ok, then the definition i use is "fnarfle zorknid blagnip." now how does this support your point? oh right, it doesnt because i just made it up.

I don't even need to know what it means.
A supernatural process is one that is not "fnarfle zorknid blagnip."

Hoorah I suppose.

except im not using any lines of thought at all yet

That is readily apparent.

Sorry, but that was far too obvious for me to not use it.

- im asking you to define your terms before i critique the problems that no doubt will follow from them. if you cant even define your terms, you dont belong in the debate hall.

And I am telling you that any non reductionist materialistic (in other words, naturalistic) definition allows for the supernatural to exist.

 

[snex]

then why cant you define "natural process?" its a phrase that YOU used when defining "supernatural." so what does it mean? you keep whining about different worldviews but YOU are the one failing to define your terms.

i asked you what "supernatural" is.
you said that its an action that defies "natural processes."
i asked what a "natural process" is.
you still havent answered.

so so far, all we know about "supernatural" things is that they defy some other undefined thing.

is that what you call a coherent definition of "supernatural?" why dont you open your introductory philosophy book and show me where it supports that.

 

[RDK]

Yossarian's debating style of whining about loose term definitions and then beating around the bush when asked what definitions he would prefer angers me. I'm fairly confident I'm not alone in this.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

So I was walking and talking with God one day when he told me that I should believe in his Son’s great and mighty powers. I asked, “How come I should believe in a Cosmic Jewish Zombie.” And he tells me that it’s because he is Jesus. I thought it was kind of weird that God is his own father, but what the hey.

“What makes believing in Him so great”, I asked, and he replied that he could make me live forever. “So how does that work?”

“Oh it’s easy,” he responded, “you just have to symbolically eat my flesh and drink my blood.”

“Is that all”, I said.

“No, you also have to telepathically tell me that you accept me as your one true lord and master.”

“And what is keeping me from living forever right now”, I queried.

“You have an evil force surrounding your body and weighing down you soul.”

“Where the [expletive] did that come from?”

“Oh, a rib-women I made for Adam, because I defectively created him to be lonely, was tricked by a talking snake I put in the Garden of Eden to eat from a magical tree that I conveniently placed there.”

“Uh-huh”, I said, “that makes perfect sense.”

 

[Zero Beat]

God was never created, nor will he cease to exist. One day, 5700 something years ago, he decided to create everything. I don't know, I guess he got bored of living in a white room.

Somehow, we find simple artifacts dating back 75,000 years ago. I don't get it, the math just doesn't
equate here.

 

[RDK]

God was never created, nor will he cease to exist. One day, 5700 something years ago, he decided to create everything. I don't know, I guess he got bored of living in a white room.

Somehow, we find simple artifacts dating back 75,000 years ago. I don't get it, the math just doesn't
equate here.

But according to creationists radiometric dating is based on faulty assumptions and cannot be taken seriously. Lawl.

 

[snex]

But according to creationists radiometric dating is based on faulty assumptions and cannot be taken seriously. Lawl.

some creationists claim that the constants of the universe, like the speed of light, the rate of nuclear decay, the gravitational constant, etc, are so finely tuned to allow life that they must have been deliberately chosen by an intelligent creator.

those same creationists will tell you that those same constants must have varied wildly in the past because assuming they didnt means the earth is 4.5 billion years old instead of 6000.

 

[Aesir]

Those same creationists also don't understand much of anything at all. I think it was Dr. Lee Smolin who said our universe has the right constants to be a black hole producer. So 99% of everything in the universe goes toward creating black holes. So any life bearing world would just be a by-product of those constants.

Even then without looking at Smolins work you only to look at the universe and it's quiet obvious that it wasn't built for any specific purpose. You don't need to be a scientist to realize the universe wasn't designed to support life.

 

[RDK]

I also like the claim that "creation" is designed by God and therefore everything works perfectly as he designed it, but any biologist will tell you that nature is far from perfect. Some animals are just horribly designed (not any fault of god's, because he doesn't exist; moreso evolution's), and people are stupid if they think the universe is "fine tuned".

It really just goes to show you how ignorant people are.

Edit:

some creationists claim that the constants of the universe, like the speed of light, the rate of nuclear decay, the gravitational constant, etc, are so finely tuned to allow life that they must have been deliberately chosen by an intelligent creator.

those same creationists will tell you that those same constants must have varied wildly in the past because assuming they didnt means the earth is 4.5 billion years old instead of 6000.

I think this is just a product of creationists' misunderstanding of what catastrophism and uniformitarianism are. Most of the creationists I've talked to have an abysmally shallow idea of what the terms really mean. Go figure.

Also, this is an incredibly funny and relevant quote I found while digging in the EvC forums:

God as a designer: he's either an idiot, or for a deity, remarkably hard-up when it comes to paying for design plans. He uses the same basic body plan for fish, quadrupeds, bipeds, birds, etc. Why should us bipeds have to put up with a skeletal structure that designed for walking on all fours? Did God force us into second-hand body-plans post-fall, just so that we could enjoy the delights of back-pain?

Why do we have sub-optimal eye design, especially compared to the octopus? Why do we have such stupid "programming" restrictions in the articulation of our arms? Did we not itch in that impossible-to-reach spot on our backs, pre-fall? Why are our genitals so exposed to damage?

Why do we hurt, damage and even kill ourselves when we fall over? Was the ground softer pre-fall? Why do our bones break, limbs dislocate, etc? Why do we need to eat? Why do we need to breathe?

How about not using the same tube for eating and breathing? I gotta say, any engineer who designed that today, leaving the obvious flaw of being able to choke simply by eating, would be fired.

If you can point out to me the guy responsible for all of this, I will not bow down and worship... I will laugh because he has made one hell of a joke. As an exercise in what physical laws can produce, the human life is a stroke of genius. As an example of what a deity can spontaneously 'create', it's pathetic.

Simply put: if the human body was specifically designed, the designer was on crack. An idiot. A fool. A complete and total moron. There is no "glory" in giving the so-called pinnacle of your creation inherent flaws that most of the "lesser" creatures you made don't themselves posses. Anyone who thinks human eyes are "intelligently designed" when birds of prey can see clearly for miles and octopi can self-correct for the sort of lens flaws that plague most humans is a moron. Anyone who thinks using the same tube for breathing and eating is an example of "masterful" design is an idiot.

Your Jehovah is an incompetent boob if we are the result of his direct and special creation.

The only thing impressive about the human body in terms of design is that it actually works at all. The only miracle is that we haven't all developed cancer, don't all have vision problems or appendicitis, and don't all have birth defects resulting from the inherently flawed DNA replication cycle.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

... I think we won.

 

[IWontGetOverTheDam]

God was never created, nor will he cease to exist. One day, 5700 something years ago, he decided to create everything. I don't know, I guess he got bored of living in a white room.

Somehow, we find simple artifacts dating back 75,000 years ago. I don't get it, the math just doesn't
equate here.

Duh. Everyone knows that God planted those objects there to test our faith.

 

[Deleted member]

PASCAL'S WAGER!!!111111111111ONEee!!!!1

 

[RDK]

Dammit Delorted, respond to our DWYP thread.

 

[Deleted member]

Working on it. Frosh is over and I'm just settling in. I'll try to post tomorrow

 

[CorruptFate]

PASCAL'S WAGER!!!111111111111ONEee!!!!1

Well I agree that Pascal's wager is a good point it doent mean that God is real it simply says "this is why you should believe in God".

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Well I agree that Pascal's wager is a good point it doent mean that God is real it simply says "this is why you should believe in God".

Sure, which god? They can't all be right. Which makes Pascal's Wager rather asinine.

 

[The Executive]

Dammit Delorted, respond to our DWYP thread.

I read it and seeing you type in white made me think it was an imposter.

 

[RDK]

I read it and seeing you type in white made me think it was an imposter.

Lol, that's what everyone says. People thought my account got hacked into.

 

[The Executive]

Lol, that's what everyone says. People thought my account got hacked into.

To paraphrase that 4chan sig you had "HE TYPES IN RED; HE MUST BE IMPORTANT"

 

[CorruptFate]

Sure, which god? They can't all be right. Which makes Pascal's Wager rather asinine.

I agree with you on that it doesn't say what god or that there is any real god. Thats all I was saying.

 

[Zero Beat]

PASCAL'S WAGER!!!111111111111ONEee!!!!1

An inverse way of pointing out the flaw of Pascal's Wager is "I claim that beliving I am a dolphin will turn me into one. If I'm right, this is a major win. If I'm wrong, no big loss. But if I don't believe I'm a dolphin, I'll never become one. Therefore I should believe I am a dolphin."

The construct sort of makes sense if you already buy into the premises, but the premises are so shaky, for example:

Who's to say which is the right god? Who's to say that god rewards believers? You can knock those pillars right out from under it by the following analyzation..

The probability of being born into a family that knows the one true way of god is infinitely small. If you count only existing religions, unsupportedly presupposing that SOMEBODY is right, your chances are still less than 1 in a million.

By now you're thinking, "owned?" Yes, they owned themselves, and the job of the rationalist is to point it out.

 

[MojoMan]

You know, I think the DH should set up a rule that a thread gets locked if there are over 50 pges of debating, because then it just gets monotonous. This has been going on for 8 months now! Seriously! Anyway, my opinion on it is (because I don't know if I've said it yet), that people can believe in god because religious parents have been telling them that since day 1. It's just like slavery. The salvedrivers yelled at you and told you that you were scum and dirt, and eventually, you start to believe it, if it's since the day you were born.

 

[CorruptFate]

You know, I think the DH should set up a rule that a thread gets locked if there are over 50 pges of debating, because then it just gets monotonous. This has been going on for 8 months now! Seriously! Anyway, my opinion on it is (because I don't know if I've said it yet), that people can believe in god because religious parents have been telling them that since day 1. It's just like slavery. The salvedrivers yelled at you and told you that you were scum and dirt, and eventually, you start to believe it, if it's since the day you were born.

It stays open because people are still talking and there is no point in making a new one on the same topic, you have nothing to gain from closing it.

As i agree with what you said about that to a degree how would it have all started then? If you are going by the bible people beleived Jesus that were much older then him and weren't being told that he was the son of God from day one, yet they still went with him.

 

[RDK]

It stays open because people are still talking and there is no point in making a new one on the same topic, you have nothing to gain from closing it.

As i agree with what you said about that to a degree how would it have all started then? If you are going by the bible people beleived Jesus that were much older then him and weren't being told that he was the son of God from day one, yet they still went with him.

Look at all the wackos that had cult followings just in the past 100 or so years. Just because somebody tells you to believe in them doesn't mean you should.

 

[Zero Beat]

Look at all the wackos that had cult followings just in the past 100 or so years. Just because somebody tells you to believe in them doesn't mean you should.

For the record, I'm not religious in any sense nor believe that there is a God. However, I think you should be well aware of a very big part as to why there are so many religious people to begin with.

Kids born into religious families. Conditioned to see things only one way.

Atheists in the US are a minority. So saying "Well I was raised in a religious family and.."

Minority.

 

[RDK]

For the record, I'm not religious in any sense nor believe that there is a God. However, I think you should be well aware of a very big part as to why there are so many religious people to begin with.

Kids born into religious families. Conditioned to see things only one way.

Atheists in the US are a minority. So saying "Well I was raised in a religious family and.."

Minority.

I'm not sure why exactly you think I don't agree with this. People are religious because their parents are religious. If you're brought up Christian, you're going to see things through a prodominatly Christian viewpoint.

 

[Zero Beat]

Oh no problem. Although I'm confused about one thing, do you mean to say that every child born into a christian family will ultimately turn out to be like his family?

 

[Tom]

Oh no problem. Although I'm confused about one thing, do you mean to say that every child born into a christian family will ultimately turn out to be like his family?

im pretty sure he doesn't mean that, iirc RDK was raised in a christian family