God is the word/being/reason that people use to fill in the gaps of what is unknown.
Ex: "God took that woman to heaven." instead of "That woman died from a reaction to prescribed drugs."
I also define God as the scapegoat/totem for peoples lives. Some will call the strengths they work for or their conscience and works from God or will believe in him for those things so they can get by. Or curse God when bad thing happen to them.
There's probably some faults in my thinking, but it all stems from observing my family and talking and debate about our polarizing beliefs.
Could someone elaborate more on why the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a problem, any more than any god of a competing religion would be?
My own personal viewpoint is that God is some sort of meta-rational being that it makes little sense for humans to talk about. Just as any logical system beyond a certain point is too complicated to be able to prove its own validity, the universe observable by humans does not provide us with enough information to understand its true nature. That is, it is entirely possible that God may exist or may not, and although it must be true that only one of those is the case, both of them are consistent with any set of observations we could possibly make. This being said, it makes sense then to consider the consequences both of God existing and of God not existing, because it leads to interesting questions. Furthermore, people should be free to choose whichever of those they like, and use it as a guideline to reason things about the universe, live their lives, etc, so long as they recognize that they are making an arbitrary theoretical choice. I liken it to mathematicians choosing to believe that their work makes sense, even though we know it is completely unprovable whether it is meaningless or not. However, we still get useful results out of it. In the same way, we can look at the good (and bad) things religion has done for the world, while accepting that it may ultimately be an unsolvable question. Denying the existence of god to a common person makes about as much sense as denying imaginary numbers to a physicist or engineer.
Could someone elaborate more on why the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a problem, any more than any god of a competing religion would be?
They are equally problematic, but the FSM ought to chafe the religious much more because of its far more prominent ridiculousness.
My own personal viewpoint is that God is some sort of meta-rational being that it makes little sense for humans to talk about. Just as any logical system beyond a certain point is too complicated to be able to prove its own validity, the universe observable by humans does not provide us with enough information to understand its true nature. That is, it is entirely possible that God may exist or may not, and although it must be true that only one of those is the case, both of them are consistent with any set of observations we could possibly make. This being said, it makes sense then to consider the consequences both of God existing and of God not existing, because it leads to interesting questions. Furthermore, people should be free to choose whichever of those they like, and use it as a guideline to reason things about the universe, live their lives, etc, so long as they recognize that they are making an arbitrary theoretical choice.
How can we have so little understanding of God and yet have the ability to make any inferences as to the consequences of God's existence, or use it as a "guideline" of any kind?
I liken it to mathematicians choosing to believe that their work makes sense, even though we know it is completely unprovable whether it is meaningless or not. However, we still get useful results out of it. In the same way, we can look at the good (and bad) things religion has done for the world, while accepting that it may ultimately be an unsolvable question. Denying the existence of god to a common person makes about as much sense as denying imaginary numbers to a physicist or engineer.
That is a ludicrous statement. Physicists and engineers use imaginary numbers because they're got-damn useful. On the other hand, the existence of God is not particularly useful as you've just said yourself.
How can we have so little understanding of God and yet have the ability to make any inferences as to the consequences of God's existence, or use it as a "guideline" of any kind?
This is exactly true, and it's exactly what I was saying before. A "meta-rational" god is effectively identical to no god at all. If you can't comprehend something, you can not possibly understand the consequences of its existence, or factor it into any thought process. Incomprehensible god and no god are identical. In other words, if you believe in a god that can not be understood, you are an atheist, and you don't realize it.
Denying the existence of god to a common person makes about as much sense as denying imaginary numbers to a physicist or engineer.
That is a ludicrous statement. Physicists and engineers use imaginary numbers because they're got-damn useful. On the other hand, the existence of God is not particularly useful as you've just said yourself. I said nothing of the sort. God is not particularly useful to ME, but other people use the idea of God for all kinds of reasons.
I was not trying to say anything about comprehensibility either, only provability. When I said that I think "it makes little sense for humans to talk about," I meant that I don't believe that the discussion of God's existence or nature has any effect on our everyday lives. It's clearly very important to other people for motivations that I don't share.
God is a character in many books that may or may not have done some cool stuff in those books, but outside of that context has little meaning beyond justifying the existence of organized religion and occasionally a holy war or two.
That is, it is entirely possible that God may exist or may not, and although it must be true that only one of those is the case, both of them are consistent with any set of observations we could possibly make.
That, to me, was sufficient to justify God being "not particularly useful" - having no observable effect on the universe. In addition to this, unlike imaginary numbers in many areas of physics and engineering, there is no area where God is pretty much essential. Your analogy remains deeply flawed.
As for "discussion of God's existence" - it does indeed have little effect on our everyday lives. It's a discussion; it has some entertainment value, and that's mostly it. However, people with deeply held irrational religious beliefs aren't likely to give them up in the face of rational argument, so in that regard there is little effect. Even so, I don't see that it matters whether or not the discussion has any worth. We're having the discussion already.
Your argument seems to be that the "idea" of God is a useful one to some people, but I don't see the justification when those people could just as well support their lifestyle without reference to the unknowable.
Imaginary numbers are not at all essential to anything. Anything we can do with complex numbers, we can do with ordered pairs of real numbers. However, for some people, one idea makes more sense, and working under that system makes them happier, more comfortable, and more productive. The analogy is not perfect, but this is the point I was trying to make with it.
I don't think it's clear that religious people could live just as well without God. They seem to derive a lot of happiness from their belief in God, and it often motivates them to do good things. Would you prefer if all those people to convert to atheism and then continued to act exactly the same way?
If the people would indeed continue to act in exactly the same way with it as without, I don't mind religion much. However, unlike an engineer choosing not to use the term "imaginary number", I find that in the vast majority of cases religion has a significant impact on people's decision-making processes.
How can we have so little understanding of God and yet have the ability to make any inferences as to the consequences of God's existence, or use it as a "guideline" of any kind?
This is exactly true, and it's exactly what I was saying before. A "meta-rational" god is effectively identical to no god at all. If you can't comprehend something, you can not possibly understand the consequences of its existence, or factor it into any thought process. Incomprehensible god and no god are identical. In other words, if you believe in a god that can not be understood, you are an atheist, and you don't realize it.
Effectively is the active word you put in your statement, then forgot. Even if 'God' cannot have input on a believer's choices through 'understandings' of it that doesn't make the believer an atheist, the belief of God itself has effect on the life.
Here I will define 'God' the best I can. First of all I would like to say the universe is finite, according to the Big Bang theory; and that the greatest thing in physical existence is the universe. Humans are subjective beings and can comprehend nothing objectively, only subjectively. So we can believe that 'God' transcends ourselves is perfect objectiveness. Perfect Truth, existing outside of this universe of relations. Meaning that God is the end of all logical argumentation, we just don't always finish or have our results corrupted by our subjectivity.
Defining god feels like trying to define a pronoun. Definitions are only helpful if they can be agreed upon, and when people say "god" they could be referring to any number of things. When ever I enter into a conversation about god with someone (if they bring it up) the first thing I try to do is get them to clarify their meaning. People hold such radically different definitions of the word itself that one person's definition is completely useless in an other context. With that clarified, when I say that I am an atheist I mean that I reject the existence of any higher power.
Effectively is the active word you put in your statement, then forgot. Even if 'God' cannot have input on a believer's choices through 'understandings' of it that doesn't make the believer an atheist, the belief of God itself has effect on the life.
But effect is all that matters. Somethings that exists and has no effect is exactly the same as something which does not exist.
Pretend there is a tree in the woods. However, this tree is perfectly invisible. It is also perfectly intangible, so other objects can occupy the same space as this tree. Also, this tree creates no sounds. Even if the tree is actually "there" it can't be observed in any way, and has no effect on anything that can be observed. Therefore the tree does not exist.
The problem is that humans can conceptualize an existence separate from all other things. The reality is that effect is existence. No effect, no existence, can't have one.
If you are religious, and you define god as something that defies comprehension, then you've just defeated yourself. If god defies comprehension, then how do you know that you aren't supposed to eat pork?
I said that to someone at school earlier, and they just said "Shut up." They just can't accept there's not a god.
I said that to someone at school earlier, and they just said "Shut up." They just can't accept there's not a god.
We should put a new definition of shut up in the dictionary.
shut up
I admit that I am completely wrong, and you are completely right. However, I will continue to tell myself otherwise because my underdeveloped mental faculties are incapable of dealing with any other possibility without completely breaking down.
If you are religious, and you define god as something that defies comprehension, then you've just defeated yourself. If god defies comprehension, then how do you know that you aren't supposed to eat pork?
I said that to someone at school earlier, and they just said "Shut up." They just can't accept there's not a god.
That's how most people are. They can't deal with rejection, not just about religion, but about anything. They are too concerned with their personal image.
So we can believe that 'God' transcends ourselves is perfect objectiveness. Perfect Truth, existing outside of this universe of relations. Meaning that God is the end of all logical argumentation, we just don't always finish or have our results corrupted by our subjectivity.
In what way would a God transcend ourselves, and what proof do you have of it? What do you mean by "God is the end of all logical argumentation?" Please clarify this so I can understand your point. As it is, your statements are little more than poetry. Can you make your poetry concrete? Can you give an example?
By the way, so far you are the only person to successfully address the question in the manner I was seeking. Your statements at least give us a launch-point for trying to understand your perspective. Now, if you could only use words that have value....
Sorry to dig this dead thing up. Let me state first that I am an atheist, at least until something more plausible appears. I simply go to a Catholic high school and thus am well versed in their reasoning, which is not entirely devoid of merit. Which also requires me to say that I am only noting the Judeo-Christian beliefs, or reasoning for belief, concerning God.
But effect is all that matters. Somethings that exists and has no effect is exactly the same as something which does not exist.
Pretend there is a tree in the woods. However, this tree is perfectly invisible. It is also perfectly intangible, so other objects can occupy the same space as this tree. Also, this tree creates no sounds. Even if the tree is actually "there" it can't be observed in any way, and has no effect on anything that can be observed. Therefore the tree does not exist.
The problem is that humans can conceptualize an existence separate from all other things. The reality is that effect is existence. No effect, no existence, can't have one.
You forget the possibility of unseen, unnoticed effects, e.g. a community whose water supply was contaminated insomuch that their lifespans were shortened by five years. No member of the community ever learned of the water's effect and thus was an effect that was never acknowledged, but it cannot be denied that in truth the poison caused the community's members to have a shorter life.
If you are religious, and you define god as something that defies comprehension, then you've just defeated yourself. If god defies comprehension, then how do you know that you aren't supposed to eat pork? How do you know you are supposed to go church on Sunday and pray to it? A god that is incomprehensible is the same as no god at all.
The questions are clouding the issue and the statement that an incomprehensible God is synonymous with no God is blatant invalid reasoning. There is a distinct difference: one exists the other does not. The reason that Cnaiur loved Anasurimbor Sr. is incomprehensible to me yet a reason nonetheless.
In what way would a God transcend ourselves, and what proof do you have of it? What do you mean by "God is the end of all logical argumentation?" Please clarify this so I can understand your point. As it is, your statements are little more than poetry. Can you make your poetry concrete? Can you give an example?
By the way, so far you are the only person to successfully address the question in the manner I was seeking. Your statements at least give us a launch-point for trying to understand your perspective. Now, if you could only use words that have value....
First, God transcends us because he is spiritual. We as humans are physical(temporal) and spiritual(eternal). We are the twilight creatures between the earth/animals(purely physical) and angels, demons, and the whole, shall we say, pantheon(spiritual), which God is part of. I'll get back to your second question later because it is the core of the issue. What I mean by God being the end of logical argumentation is the obtuse version of the phrase "I am the Truth, the Light, and the Way," (Jesus of Nazareth). That God, being the master of the spiritual, the eternal, simply is. He is being, creation, and existence. Everything I have typed may sound whimsy and poetic, but the belief is exactly as stated. I am simply being explicit and direct. Its appearance of beating around the bush with illustrative language is one of the reasons it is difficult to see an argument. Finally the matter of evidence. This is the reason for the word 'Faith', of free will, and that 'Thou shalt not test the Lord, thy God." This conflict for religion is the separator of the wheat from the chaff. How easy it would be, thus trivialize the importance of, to believe in God if there was a concrete, physical, and scientific way to prove the existence of God. Also since God is pure spirit and all our acceptable scientific tools in this world are physical and thus concern only the physical, we cannot physically prove his existence, we cannot prove the spiritual. This also accounts for many of the incomprehensible parts of religion, i.e. the Mysteries of Faith (God is Three and God is One).
In conclusion we, searching for knowledge and truth, cannot just say that a spiritual being does not exist. If we do we commit the Fallacy of Ignorance, absence of proof is not proof of absence. So we have no recourse, there is a stand-still that has no decisive victory for either side making theology a non-objective choice. Not to say that most people are logical in their belief, atheists and theists alike, but that if each side argued as optimally as possible there is a draw. Science is allowed to ignore the thesis of supernatural existence because the statement is in pseudoscience territory, with an untestable thesis similar to Schrodinger's Cat, but that does not make the claim false.
Science is allowed to ignore the thesis of supernatural existence because the statement is in pseudoscience territory, with an untestable thesis similar to Schrodinger's Cat, but that does not make the claim false.
True, but now the issue becomes one of why belief falls where it does. All religions are untestable because none of them contain falsifiable hypotheses. This being the case, all religions are necessarily equally likely to be true or not true. In other words, if you can't test any claims, then any claim could be true or not. In the case of religion, there are multiple competing mutually exclusive claims, none of which can be demonstrated to be more or less true than any others. The result is that you cannot believe any of them to be true.
And if you run to "faith," all I have to say is: Flying Spaghetti Monster.
You forget the possibility of unseen, unnoticed effects,
Un-noticed does not mean un-noticeable. Clearly, since there was an effect, as you stated, then this effect could, with the proper resources, be measured. It is natural, and has an effect. Now, practically, there are many things which affect us, but which we cannot or will not (for lack of resources) measure. If the effect of something is so small as to be effectively immeasurable in a particular time and place, then it in effect does not exist in said time or place. Observations are all relative. Thus, if all humans drank the same water, there would be no effect, because all humans are affected, and there is no example outside of this frame of reference. But, if one community of humans was not affected, and the rest were, we now have effect, even if we cannot understand cause.
[Catholic reasoning] is not entirely devoid of merit.
I take great issue with that statement. They postulate from nothing, with nothing, about nothing, and furthermore are not even internally consistent. You'll really need to convince me of any particular and specific merit for me to stand behind this one.
We as humans are physical(temporal)and spiritual(eternal).
Back that up. As far as all of history has shown us, we are physical. Period. Everything we are is encompassed in the physical reality of our existence. To assert more requires evidence.
What I mean by God being the end of logical argumentation is the obtuse version of the phrase "I am the Truth, the Light, and the Way," (Jesus of Nazareth). That God, being the master of the spiritual, the eternal, simply is. He is being, creation, and existence.
That's not logic. At best, you've weakly asserted that the word "god" simply means "existence," which therefore makes it a useless word and ends the argument accomplishing nothing. If I define A as 5, and then assert that A is 5, I am right by my own definition, and I have done nothing special.
Everything I have typed may sound whimsy and poetic, but the belief is exactly as stated. I am simply being explicit and direct. Its appearance of beating around the bush with illustrative language is one of the reasons it is difficult to see an argument.
But you didn't actually make an argument. You defined "god" as something else, and then pointed out that this other thing exists. There's nothing here.
So we have no recourse, there is a stand-still that has no decisive victory for either side making theology a non-objective choice.
That is intellectual lassitude to the extreme. Every theological assertion is a claim, and extraordinary claims must be backed by extraordinary evidence. They have not even ordinary evidence, so I see no reason for intelligent people to entertain their fantasies.
but that if each side argued as optimally as possible there is a draw.
There is absolutely not a draw of any sort. You've presented no new argument (if you've even presented an argument at all). By this logic, all non-observable or non-observed things must be assumed to have at least a 50% chance of existing. To follow your absurd logic, we are also at a logical draw as to whether or not there are invisible purple unicorns behind each of us which, at the hour of our death, steal our souls. We are at a logical draw as to whether or not there is a second, invisible sun directly behind our current star. It's ludicrous to lend credence to the un-observable in any capacity other than attempting to observe it.
with an untestable thesis similar to Schrodinger's Cat
Schrodinger's Cat is an analogy, not a thesis. You misunderstand what it means, and furthermore the behavior it analogizes is observable and theoretically measurable. String Theory and the like are just that: theories. They're predictive. They imply something useful about the world, and can be measured, observed, tested, and when necessary, amended. Don't use a simply analogy made by one scientist to explain a difficult-to-understand observation/hypothesis as an example of pseudoscience or the untestable: it doesn't support your argument.
It's happenin'. I'd say, if you have to choose a religion based on style and/or coolness factor alone and if you want to remain a layman, Catholicism is tough to beat.
However, we get +10 points for style.
Pipe organs count for a lot.
In your pants.
People have commented that I'm carting around some serious pipe - big enough for Vespers at the very least.
I'd say, if you have to choose a religion based on style and/or coolness factor alone and if you want to remain a layman, Catholicism is tough to beat.
To quote Mike Krahulik/"Gabe" (in reference to Devil May Cry, iirc), "Catholicism is the best fantasy setting".
Comments
Ex: "God took that woman to heaven." instead of "That woman died from a reaction to prescribed drugs."
I also define God as the scapegoat/totem for peoples lives. Some will call the strengths they work for or their conscience and works from God or will believe in him for those things so they can get by. Or curse God when bad thing happen to them.
There's probably some faults in my thinking, but it all stems from observing my family and talking and debate about our polarizing beliefs.
My own personal viewpoint is that God is some sort of meta-rational being that it makes little sense for humans to talk about. Just as any logical system beyond a certain point is too complicated to be able to prove its own validity, the universe observable by humans does not provide us with enough information to understand its true nature. That is, it is entirely possible that God may exist or may not, and although it must be true that only one of those is the case, both of them are consistent with any set of observations we could possibly make.
This being said, it makes sense then to consider the consequences both of God existing and of God not existing, because it leads to interesting questions. Furthermore, people should be free to choose whichever of those they like, and use it as a guideline to reason things about the universe, live their lives, etc, so long as they recognize that they are making an arbitrary theoretical choice.
I liken it to mathematicians choosing to believe that their work makes sense, even though we know it is completely unprovable whether it is meaningless or not. However, we still get useful results out of it. In the same way, we can look at the good (and bad) things religion has done for the world, while accepting that it may ultimately be an unsolvable question.
Denying the existence of god to a common person makes about as much sense as denying imaginary numbers to a physicist or engineer.
I said nothing of the sort. God is not particularly useful to ME, but other people use the idea of God for all kinds of reasons.
I was not trying to say anything about comprehensibility either, only provability. When I said that I think "it makes little sense for humans to talk about," I meant that I don't believe that the discussion of God's existence or nature has any effect on our everyday lives. It's clearly very important to other people for motivations that I don't share.
As for "discussion of God's existence" - it does indeed have little effect on our everyday lives. It's a discussion; it has some entertainment value, and that's mostly it. However, people with deeply held irrational religious beliefs aren't likely to give them up in the face of rational argument, so in that regard there is little effect. Even so, I don't see that it matters whether or not the discussion has any worth. We're having the discussion already.
Your argument seems to be that the "idea" of God is a useful one to some people, but I don't see the justification when those people could just as well support their lifestyle without reference to the unknowable.
However, for some people, one idea makes more sense, and working under that system makes them happier, more comfortable, and more productive. The analogy is not perfect, but this is the point I was trying to make with it.
I don't think it's clear that religious people could live just as well without God. They seem to derive a lot of happiness from their belief in God, and it often motivates them to do good things.
Would you prefer if all those people to convert to atheism and then continued to act exactly the same way?
Here I will define 'God' the best I can. First of all I would like to say the universe is finite, according to the Big Bang theory; and that the greatest thing in physical existence is the universe. Humans are subjective beings and can comprehend nothing objectively, only subjectively. So we can believe that 'God' transcends ourselves is perfect objectiveness. Perfect Truth, existing outside of this universe of relations. Meaning that God is the end of all logical argumentation, we just don't always finish or have our results corrupted by our subjectivity.
Pretend there is a tree in the woods. However, this tree is perfectly invisible. It is also perfectly intangible, so other objects can occupy the same space as this tree. Also, this tree creates no sounds. Even if the tree is actually "there" it can't be observed in any way, and has no effect on anything that can be observed. Therefore the tree does not exist.
The problem is that humans can conceptualize an existence separate from all other things. The reality is that effect is existence. No effect, no existence, can't have one.
By the way, so far you are the only person to successfully address the question in the manner I was seeking. Your statements at least give us a launch-point for trying to understand your perspective. Now, if you could only use words that have value....
What I mean by God being the end of logical argumentation is the obtuse version of the phrase "I am the Truth, the Light, and the Way," (Jesus of Nazareth). That God, being the master of the spiritual, the eternal, simply is. He is being, creation, and existence.
Everything I have typed may sound whimsy and poetic, but the belief is exactly as stated. I am simply being explicit and direct. Its appearance of beating around the bush with illustrative language is one of the reasons it is difficult to see an argument.
Finally the matter of evidence. This is the reason for the word 'Faith', of free will, and that 'Thou shalt not test the Lord, thy God." This conflict for religion is the separator of the wheat from the chaff. How easy it would be, thus trivialize the importance of, to believe in God if there was a concrete, physical, and scientific way to prove the existence of God. Also since God is pure spirit and all our acceptable scientific tools in this world are physical and thus concern only the physical, we cannot physically prove his existence, we cannot prove the spiritual. This also accounts for many of the incomprehensible parts of religion, i.e. the Mysteries of Faith (God is Three and God is One).
In conclusion we, searching for knowledge and truth, cannot just say that a spiritual being does not exist. If we do we commit the Fallacy of Ignorance, absence of proof is not proof of absence. So we have no recourse, there is a stand-still that has no decisive victory for either side making theology a non-objective choice. Not to say that most people are logical in their belief, atheists and theists alike, but that if each side argued as optimally as possible there is a draw. Science is allowed to ignore the thesis of supernatural existence because the statement is in pseudoscience territory, with an untestable thesis similar to Schrodinger's Cat, but that does not make the claim false.
And if you run to "faith," all I have to say is: Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Sorry, but I can't take these conversations seriously any more.