Philosophy Discussion Forums

Sy Borg wrote: ↑July 13th, 2024, 1:24 am You can wriggle and squirm and rationalise...

I have described my beliefs, and why I hold them, while you rely on hyperbole ("proof!") and bluster ("obvious!"). Now you add straw-man attacks (see below), but *I* am squirming and wriggling?

Sy Borg wrote: ↑July 13th, 2024, 1:24 am ...but if I claim there is a large invisible spirit of a tortoise that has followed you around for the last twenty years, based on what your have said, you MUST take the claim seriously because you have no proof against it. None. You cannot disprove it, so it's on the table and should be discussed as a serious possibility.

[...]

Each one deserves long and deep consideration, perhaps multiple threads on the forum. Otherwise, it would be disrespectful and arrogant. Who are we to dismiss these claims if we have no evidence? That would be unscientific and arrogant, according to you. Every red herring must be respected and seriously considered.

<Straw-man alert> — "You cannot disprove it, so it's on the table and should be discussed as a serious possibility."

No, it *could* be "discussed as a serious possibility", but why? There are so very many of these metaphysical issues that we cannot prove or disprove, but some of them mean enough to us humans that we are interested enough to discuss them in forums like this. But are invisible tortoise-spirits in that category?

Well, no. Because there are so many possibilities for us to consider, if we choose to, we don't have the time to consider them all. And so we choose the ones that interest us the most. And your response to this? To ridicule and misrepresent my position.

Isn't it time to admit that, like me, you hold beliefs that you cannot justify in any scientific, analytic, or intellectual way (because there is no such justification)? Your beliefs (concerning God's existence) are based on feeling, nothing more, as mine are. Time to 'come out'?

No God proposition is worthy of serious consideration.
Burden of proof is with the original claim.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 13th, 2024, 10:39 am No God proposition is worthy of serious consideration.
Burden of proof is with the original claim.

Exactly. Otherwise, as I tried to put across to P-C above, people can make any old claims and inclusive-minded post-modernists will be compelled to waste time taking them seriously.

logically, the only reason to create God was an inability to comprehend that we lived on a planet, whose reality was only properly apparent in the late 1950s when people saw what Earth looked like from space for the first time.

These days, the only reason for an intelligent, educated person to continue believing in god(s) is as a salve for existential angst. I have no problem with people doing that if they need it. But just because people choose to believe in god(s) does not make god(s) any more likely to be real than the Flying Spaghetti Monster or fairies at the bottom of the garden.

Sitting on the agnostic fence in relation to the existence of god(s) is a weaseling cop-out by otherwise intelligent people. And it means they also need to sit on the fence with respect to all sort of other nonsense entities like fairies, dragons, leprechauns, trolls, etc. It's an intellectial mug's game.

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑July 14th, 2024, 12:01 am These days, the only reason for an intelligent, educated person to continue believing in god(s) is as a salve for existential angst. I have no problem with people doing that if they need it. But just because people choose to believe in god(s) does not make god(s) any more likely to be real than the Flying Spaghetti Monster or fairies at the bottom of the garden.

Sitting on the agnostic fence in relation to the existence of god(s) is a weaseling cop-out by otherwise intelligent people. And it means they also need to sit on the fence with respect to all sort of other nonsense entities like fairies, dragons, leprechauns, trolls, etc. It's an intellectial mug's game.

Agreed, but don't underestimate the value of this salve.

I similarly don't put much stead in standard "agnosticism", since no one, not theists, nor atheists "know" that gods exist or don't exist. In that sense, everyone is an agnostic. Theists believe (in the absence of knowledge) and atheists don't believe (in the absence of proof of nonexistence).

Of course, this is more about definitions of terms, as opposed to concepts.

I agree, for the most part, with what you say LuckyR.

But I don't think I underestimate the value of the salve. Some people feel they couldn't go on, or that they couldn't live a satisfactory life without it. If that's what it take for them, then I have no problem with it, providing it does not interfere with the way others who do not need it choose to live theri lives.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑July 13th, 2024, 8:03 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 13th, 2024, 10:39 am No God proposition is worthy of serious consideration.
Burden of proof is with the original claim.

Exactly. Otherwise, as I tried to put across to P-C above, people can make any old claims and inclusive-minded post-modernists will be compelled to waste time taking them seriously.

logically, the only reason to create God was an inability to comprehend that we lived on a planet, whose reality was only properly apparent in the late 1950s when people saw what Earth looked like from space for the first time.

1859 was the key year for most.
Darwin and Wallace demonstrated that no intelligent designer was required to explain the infinite variety and majesty of the lving world.

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑July 14th, 2024, 2:08 am I agree, for the most part, with what you say LuckyR.

But I don't think I underestimate the value of the salve. Some people feel they couldn't go on, or that they couldn't live a satisfactory life without it. If that's what it take for them, then I have no problem with it, providing it does not interfere with the way others who do not need it choose to live theri lives.

That's all very well but religion is very probematic for a mature society.
It fosters the short of thinking which denies the importance of reason and evidence. The consequences of that are manifold. And I would suggest this explains why so many radical Christians and Republicans are behind Trump.
Trump is a lie factory but is beleived because belief of this sort requires nothing by fatih. On a deep emotional level they are hateful and tyrranical. Ein Gott, ein Volk, Ein Donny

I agree with you, Sculptor1. Unfortunatley, such beliefs do interfere all too often with other people's lives. For example, gay people are told they are going to some hell, women who need an abortion are tormented with guilt, and my tax money is being spent to prop up reilgiosly based schools which perpetuate such nonsense when it should rightly, IMO, be going to govenment schools that teach real science and not young earth creationism. And as yu say, such beleifs perpetuate magical thinking and a denial of truth which helps no one.

You've brought up some interesting points. I'll try to address each one critically:

1. You first need to define the evil you're referring to I.e what's evil in the limited scope of humans could be the greatest good in his omniscience.

2. You need to define what "hell" actually is. You can make a strong case that "hell" isn't a physical place of fire and brimstone, as in both the book of Matthew and the gnostic gospel of Thomas (Jesus’s secret teachings) Jesus said that heaven is "neither here nor there" but is within you and amongst you. Therefore, it would be more likely that the depictions of hell are merely metaphorical/allegorical.

3. You also have to define free will. By psychological and neuroscientific concensus, "free will" is defined as the ability to do what you will, but not will what you will. You also said that, since God knows what you'll do, your life is determined, implying that God causes you to act in a certain way just because he knows what you'll do. I think this is illogical. It's like saying that the weatherman is controlling the storm, just because he knows what direction it's going to go.

To clarify on that last point, the Christian interpretation, let's say, would be that God has given all of us a choice to do what we want, and "by their fruits you will know them" as either 'righteous' or 'wicked'. I am an anti-theist agnostic, but I was steelmanning just to give you an unbiased response. Personally, I think that if there is a God, he's evil, as his plan for human salvation is determined by geographic location of birth, so when people say "why didn't God answer my prayers?" one cannot say "it's all part of his perfect plan which you don't understand" since his plan for salvation is far from perfect. Either God has an unjust plan and thus isn't the Christian God, or he answers prayers inconsistently, and therefore isn't loving, thus not being the Christian God.

Curious_Monkey12000 wrote:Either God has an unjust plan and thus isn't the Christian God, or he answers prayers inconsistently, and therefore isn't loving, thus not being the Christian God.

That sounds about right to me.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 13th, 2024, 10:39 am No God proposition is worthy of serious consideration.
Burden of proof is with the original claim.

There is no "burden of proof", but only which of the near-infinite number of unanswerable questions you choose to consider. Or not.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑July 13th, 2024, 8:03 pm ...as I tried to put across to P-C above, people can make any old claims and inclusive-minded post-modernists will be compelled to waste time taking them seriously.

No-one is "compelled", we all have a choice in what we discuss. I object only to untrue claims of "proof", or other blatant misrepresentations.

If you reject something because you don't like it, that's fine. Just say so. But don't fabricate 'reasons' why you are correct and justified in your dismissal. Just be honest...

LuckyR wrote: ↑July 14th, 2024, 1:37 am I similarly don't put much stead in standard "agnosticism", since no one, not theists, nor atheists "know" that gods exist or don't exist. In that sense, everyone is an agnostic. Theists believe (in the absence of knowledge) and atheists don't believe (in the absence of proof of nonexistence).

Yes, but isn't it odd, the degree of opposition and anger that often appears in responses to words like yours, here?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑July 14th, 2024, 9:03 am

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 13th, 2024, 10:39 am No God proposition is worthy of serious consideration.
Burden of proof is with the original claim.

There is no "burden of proof", but only which of the near-infinite number of unanswerable questions you choose to consider. Or not.

There is an absolute and unavoidable burden of proof.
Unanserable questions are not questions, but fantasies.
Ans since there are a near-infintie number. Name two!