Belief systems poll

[Borachio]

We can never be absolutely certain that leprechauns don't exist?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Am I saying we can be absolutely certain there is no God? Still not seeing your point.

 

[Borachio]

Absence of evidence literally means absence of reason to consider it real.

I took this to mean you literally have zero reason to believe in God.

I don't see how else I could take it.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Zero reason doesn't suggest that something was impossible. It just means .. no reason to assume it actually exists.
Clear now?

 

[Borachio]

Well yes and no.

There are things which we don't know anything at all about. Absolutely zero. We don't even know we know nothing about them.

And other things that we know something about, e.g. God we've heard referred to and some people maintain that it refers to something real.

And some other things that we know something about e.g. leprechauns - I mean I even know how to spell leprechaun - and only the criminally insane apparently think these are real.

I'm not really sure which of your axioms you're using to determine which category you slot these three into.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

The primary axiom was established within the thread: No evidence either way. So I am going to just assume that all references to God made by humans, that any human inclination to have faith in deities or a deity is no reason at all to assume God exists.
In reality, I could be swayed to assume that there was some evidence indicating some kind of God. But still so weak that no God would still be the wise assumption.
How I exactly arrive at such an conclusion in terms of axioms is I am afraid quit complicated to comprehensively spell out. A multitude of axioms play are role and also interplay with each other. And perhaps heuristics is a better word. I don't know.

 

[Borachio]

How do you explain why anyone believes in God?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Our brain didn't evolve in order to give us a realistic picture of the world, but to suit our needs. The idea of God seems to satisfy a multitude of emotional needs. Satisfaction of needs seems to often trump desire of truth.
Moreover, there is some scientific-research on people who had spiritual experiences and some theories in that regard. It becomes more an more a physically traceable phenomena, a specific brain mode, when we have such experiences. Perhaps comparable to the brain mode of being in love. A sort of insanity.

 

[Borachio]

Our brain didn't evolve in order to give us a realistic picture of the world, but to suit our needs.

But if this is true, and I'm not saying it isn't, what needs are being suited by no longer believing in God?

edit: ah right, the desire for truth?

But then wasn't the belief in God born of a desire for truth, too?

 

[cardgame]

Yes... and that belief was born before scientific inquiry, methodology, rationalism, reason, and Western philosophy.

God of the Gaps

 

[Terxpahseyton]

In a sense - yeah. I am no confident to propose a general theory of what needs cause people to believe what. It depends I suppose on the individual and its environment.
But at the end - me believing not in God, me being an Atheist, is also a decision that serves some emotional need. Everything does, doesn't it? That is the whole point. It means we can not trust popular sentiment, but need something which is not swayed by our instincts.

 

[timtofly]

I'm not entirely an atheist.

But my greatest fear is that maybe there is a god. Because if there is a god, then the universe is a vastly more terrible place than if there is not a god. If there is no god, then all the horror and misery just happens. But if there is a god, then all the horror and misery is part of the plan.

That is fair. If humans ever get to the point where they cannot trust humans to do things, I would accept your point. While God's plan may include letting humans do their own thing without any intervention, I cannot accept that the plan is to intentionally hurt humans. If every human was hard wired to intentionally hurt other humans, we would be in a lot more trouble than we are. There are a lot of humans who show self restraint. That God has the ability to do so seems to indicate that his plan has restraint also. So while there is a lot of hurt and suffering, that does not mean it is part of the plan, but just allowed to go on due to the current nature of human existence.

I don't see how things could be perfect and humans still do whatever they want to do. But then again perhaps humans would not want to do anything harmful to others. That already happens though. Even if we could hurt another human, and 2 seconds later that human would get up and go on like nothing ever happened, would the world sustain human immortality? Would there be enough humans to figure out how to get off this planet and go to other star systems, if they could organize their thoughts just on that goal? What would humans do if they could not hold control over other humans? Would humans even form groups, or would each person just do their own thing, and nothing would ever get done?

Well yes and no.

There are things which we don't know anything at all about. Absolutely zero. We don't even know we know nothing about them.

And other things that we know something about, e.g. God we've heard referred to and some people maintain that it refers to something real.

And some other things that we know something about e.g. leprechauns - I mean I even know how to spell leprechaun - and only the criminally insane apparently think these are real.

I'm not really sure which of your axioms you're using to determine which category you slot these three into.

I think any one can put God into the no reason box, if they themselves deny another human's reason not to. I don't think any one can control what other people can reason unless they control the input of knowledge. Once knowledge is there, you can choose to reason about it or not. You can deny it or not, but once again, one can only do that for one's own self and not any other human, unless we get back to keeping other humans from obtaining any knowledge. Blocking knowledge though goes against the scientific method, unless of course such knowledge can be reasoned away, or outright denied.

Today humans have convinced themselves that the Bible has been proven wrong in enough instances that one can even rule out God. I do not adhere to God of the gaps, because God can be represented via humans on earth, even though other humans can become increasingly self sufficient without God. Perhaps the Bible has gaps itself to allow humans to fill them in as they gain knowledge. I don't think they will ever prove the entirety of the Bible away though.

 

[Gucumatz]

I voted entheism, but on the same hand I believe that things like chaos theory and the big bang theory actually show a weak pattern that holds randomness together in a more mathematical conception that shows there is a higher power. What that higher power is, I think we may never truly know as humans. What we perceive of god is closer to a titan imo than what God really may be capable of or less than what God/higher power is capable of. Titans and other cultural symbols of religion all fit into the same human paradigm and therefore are all partially valuable to understand how we perceive 'God'.

 

[Krogan Doctor]

Why does that give him the right? I don't see any reason why that should be true. It might give him the power to do so, but not the right.



There is no need for God in order to explain things like the movements of planets (hint: look up Kepler...) or trees bearing fruit.

And incidentally, if he is indeed the all-knowing creator which many Christians claim, he would know exactly what it would take in order to convince me of his existence (particuarly as he apparently designed me...) and is capable of providing that evidence. He choses not to. The fault is his, not mine, and yet he would still punish me? These are not the actions of a being which can be descibed as good by any rational means.

A general or marshall has the right to receive salutes from his subordinates. God is a billion, no, a quadrillion quadzillion times more entitled than any general or marshall.

God has provided enough evidence for you to know his existence through your intellect. God has pandered ENOUGH. If anyone cannot know Him, it is entirely through their own self-imposed will not to know Him.

 

[Krogan Doctor]

You and I have rather different definitions of "voluntarily". Nothing voluntary about it.

Your God is a funny one. Love me or go to hell. Love is unconditional matey. You can not force me to love such a horrible entity. All I would be able to do is act as if. And God would see through that.

No right thinking God would pose such a horrible condition on love.

I fear to think what God would use as a pickup line. "Hi, do you come here often? Now love me or I'll punch you in the face until eternity"

Yes, love me or go to hell. It's simple. God created you and put you on this Earth as a test to see if you loved Him. You should, given that He created you and a whole lot of other things in nature to show that He loved you, including other humans. Love for love is only right. Fail to reciprocate love, and YOU'RE the evil one, not God by any means.

 

[Cutlass]

That is fair. If humans ever get to the point where they cannot trust humans to do things, I would accept your point. While God's plan may include letting humans do their own thing without any intervention, I cannot accept that the plan is to intentionally hurt humans. If every human was hard wired to intentionally hurt other humans, we would be in a lot more trouble than we are. There are a lot of humans who show self restraint. That God has the ability to do so seems to indicate that his plan has restraint also. So while there is a lot of hurt and suffering, that does not mean it is part of the plan, but just allowed to go on due to the current nature of human existence.

That only makes sense with suffering that comes from human actions. Or even suffering that comes from natural disasters. But it does not explain born in suffering. Some people, and I'm one of them, suffer a lifetime of misery, not for anything we did, or that others have done to us, but simply because we were born in such away that misery is the only possibility.

I don't see how things could be perfect and humans still do whatever they want to do. But then again perhaps humans would not want to do anything harmful to others. That already happens though. Even if we could hurt another human, and 2 seconds later that human would get up and go on like nothing ever happened, would the world sustain human immortality? Would there be enough humans to figure out how to get off this planet and go to other star systems, if they could organize their thoughts just on that goal? What would humans do if they could not hold control over other humans? Would humans even form groups, or would each person just do their own thing, and nothing would ever get done?

Still, none of that requires a god. Some people stand to gain more from cooperating with others, some from hurting others. And so that's what they do. God, or the lack of a god, is not relevant to that.

 

[Akka]

What evidence is there that supports the lack of God? Because there is no divine intervention? Why must a God interfere with our lives? Is there no God because there is physics? Why must a God be the one pulling all the strings like a puppet master?

There's a ton of evidence to suggest that an Earth-based religion is false, but on the topic of a higher being itself, no, there is no evidence whatsoever.

Well, cf the Spaghetti Flying Monster, Ockham's Razor and the like.
There is litterally an infinity of things that aren't and can't be "proven" wrong (there is absolutely no way to prove that invisible and intangible unicorns who love reading comics don't exist either). Does that mean all contrived requirements for them to exist are just as probable as their simple lack of existence ?
Of course not.

(and yes I know radio waves existed even when we couldn't detect them ; I'm not saying that whatever we can't detect NOW is SURE not to exist, simply saying that there is much more chances whatever you can imagine and can't detect at all doesn't exist than the opposite, and as such you can't say they're "both equally foolish")

 

[Gucumatz]

Yes, love me or go to hell. It's simple. God created you and put you on this Earth as a test to see if you loved Him. You should, given that He created you and a whole lot of other things in nature to show that He loved you, including other humans. Love for love is only right. Fail to reciprocate love, and YOU'RE the evil one, not God by any means.

Now I am not a priest or anything like that... but plenty of religions preach unconditional love. Heck even the apostles had to answer questions if God loves universally why would there be a hell or such. Now I also am no philosopher and don't want to espouse any Kantian principles here - but love, kindness, and order are all incidentals of organized religion [that can be manipulated whatever, just adding that caveat in case anyone quotes] - but that's religion. God on the other hand if he absolutely, universally, not-caveatingly is beyond our sole understanding [hence God works in mysterious ways] you can't condemn anyone else to hell for what you might not know the 'truth' either.

God would therefore seem to be independent of such human axioms of "you are either with me or against me" but rather we are all a part of him in someway we don't truly understand. Religion gives order and is a study behind these ideas, but it won't determine your "fate" or your level of "evil or good". What you do in life may be independent of such concepts altogether. God's existence or respect to God is therefore not a "with me or against you thing" but rather a human thing. Anyone who lives may be a part of God's will/grace without them knowing. Even people who society and religion may sometimes consider evil or fallen.

 

[Krogan Doctor]

But if god created all of us and governs our lives then it's his wish for atheists to exist. Because if he didn't want them then they wouldn't exist. So if atheists and heathens are going to hell it's only because god chose some people and condemned them to hell without them having any say in the matter. So there are three options:

God will still send heathens to heaven if they behave (which suffers from the same line of thought i.e. he condemned some people to be evil)

God is a really irrational and evil being who takes pleasure in the suffering of others

God doesn't exist, at least not in a human form and he can't directly influence events.


Excuse me for finding the third option the most likely.

GOd didn't want Lucifer to sin, yet he sinned and brought sin into the universe. Sin originated with him; He was created good but fell through his own pride, greed and lust. With free will, given to humans as a great act of love (for by this humans can elect to unconditionally love God) some may choose to sin and disbelieve. Cross my heart and hope to go to hell, only fools choose this route, because only fools can fail to notice that there is a God given so many evident signs in nature.

 

[timtofly]

That only makes sense with suffering that comes from human actions. Or even suffering that comes from natural disasters. But it does not explain born in suffering. Some people, and I'm one of them, suffer a lifetime of misery, not for anything we did, or that others have done to us, but simply because we were born in such away that misery is the only possibility.

Such things would come from evolution also. Just because those things happen with or with out God, does not follow that God planned for those things to happen. Neither is he evil for allowing them to happen. Would one call evolution evil?

Still, none of that requires a god. Some people stand to gain more from cooperating with others, some from hurting others. And so that's what they do. God, or the lack of a god, is not relevant to that.

I agree, I am just trying to imagine what the world would be like without "evil" things happening. What if we had no knowledge of evil?