WHAT CONVINCED YOU?

Dades

It doesn't have to be one or either. I don't think anyone will argue that family and culture aren't the most notable influences on an individual.

We're talking about desert island situations, where someone with no outside influences will want to know why they are there, why water comes from the sky, etc. When the answers to those questions aren't readily available the gap exists for a god, and depending on the need for answers a god may often be created to fill it.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

I absolutely agree. It is insane to SEGUE into that proposition. But what are the alternatives???

Posts like this make me weep for the future of humanity...

What are the alternatives?? There are an infinite amount of alternatives!

God or nothing are not the only alternatives (I'm not sure "god" even counts as an alternative)

Zombrex

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually not quite. In a quantum loop universe model(which would be the most appealing to me), the universe expands, then over time slows down and then contracts, right down to the Planck distance and then expands again, then contracts etc etc forever. It doesn't require a singularity or indeed a beginning or an end.

New Scientist have a feature about that this month, very interesting idea.

Quantum Loop theory removes the "singularity" from the Big Bang, a concept physicists have always had trouble with as the rules break down in a singularity. And the models seem to work pretty well at producing a universe like ours.

A previous universe does raise the question of what the "earlier" (before someone jumps on that time still originates at the Big Bang so please people, particularly the Christians, don't get too hung up on the concept of the universe "before" our one) universe was like, and according to the NS article there is still a lot of debate over whether or not any evidence of the previous universe should be detectable in this universe (assuming this model is accurate).

Wibbs

Wicknight wrote: »

New Scientist have a feature about that this month, very interesting idea.

Cool! Must check that out. I haven't seen an article on the theory in quite a while. It seems to be ignored. I reckon if the colliding brane theory is thrown in it could flesh it out even more.

Quantum Loop theory removes the "singularity" from the Big Bang, a concept physicists have always had trouble with as the rules break down in a singularity. And the models seem to work pretty well at producing a universe like ours.

Even covers the inflation problem IIRC. The only issue with it is that the universe appears to be expanding faster, so when does it start to contract. Even so it seems a better model than the big bang theory. But I digress(as usual...:))

A previous universe does raise the question of what the "earlier" (before someone jumps on that time still originates at the Big Bang so please people, particularly the Christians, don't get too hung up on the concept of the universe "before" our one) universe was like, and according to the NS article there is still a lot of debate over whether or not any evidence of the previous universe should be detectable in this universe (assuming this model is accurate).

I suspect it would. As it doesn't collapse into a singularity some information is likely retained, even at the extremes of the planck distance. The information to build a new universe for a start. If that didn't exist then the previous universe would just just wink out and a new one couldn't form. I would say though that while the current universe does contain the time that came about with it, there is a "before" in the larger picture. It's just not linear. There would be a point where the time would collapse in the previous universe and then "immediately" start up again. If that model is correct then the universe(s) are infinite. In that sense there is never a "before".

20goto10

Dades wrote: »

It doesn't have to be one or either. I don't think anyone will argue that family and culture aren't the most notable influences on an individual.

We're talking about desert island situations, where someone with no outside influences will want to know why they are there, why water comes from the sky, etc. When the answers to those questions aren't readily available the gap exists for a god, and depending on the need for answers a god may often be created to fill it.

Its possible someone could come up with the concept of a God without any outside influence, as a means of a cop out for explaining "magical" phenomena. But what I'm trying to say is I don't think there is a God part of our brain which decides how predisposed a person is to believing in God, nor is a means of filling a void a satisfactory explanation.

People do not follow a religion simply because it answers questions they do not understand. What we have is a tendancy to listen to our elders. A predisposed trait which has come about through survival of the fittest. If an adult tells you don't eat that berry its poisonous, then you will forever believe that berry is poisonous and will pass the knowledge down through the generations. We still have this trait. A trait which has the negative side effect of leaving us susceptible to incorrect information, for example the same elder that told you about the poisonous berrys will tell you God created everything around you. We listen to the adults around us, because to do so is a good evolutionary trait to have - albeit with some nasty side effects

Wibbs

I would disagree. I would suggest that there is a god/spiritual/art/something more part of our brain. The something more part which gave rise to religion also gave rise to science. Both a way to try to explain our universe and our individual existence. It's part and parcel of our pattern matching abilities. Throw in consciousness and it's fun and frolics.

There are too many examples of where the brain is either damaged or an undamaged brain is stimulated in a particular way and that gives rise to spiritual feelings/religious rapture/visions/sense of oneness etc. As I said I reckon it is an evolutionary response that gave some advantage in the past and indeed to this day. Yes religion has run with that in more and more complex ways and that's where culture etc comes in, but I still reckon there is a "god" part in the brain. Now you can take the Dawkins et al idea that it's an invented meme that got out of hand, but memes are also sensitive to evolutionary pressure. It must have given one hell of a strong evolutionary advantage to be present for so long in every culture on earth since modern man walked out of Africa(and before in the case of neandertals).

Maybe that's the sticking point for some? The god bit. You can name it whichever way you like, but I do believe it exists. Both the religious and the non religious can take from that what they will. The religious can say "aha you see we're "designed" to know god and that proves he exists" and the non religious can say "aha our brains have an evolutionarily advantageous part, that is no longer required and that proves we created the idea of god ourselves". Everyone's happy.

Tim_Murphy

New Scientist have a feature about that this month, very interesting idea.

I was about to say, the article was in last weeks magazine.

Any chance of getting PDN to answer my question about the 'original' version of Old Testament scripture at this stage? I'd love to hear his take on it.

laughin'joe

I was brought up to believe in god (Catholic) but when you can think for yourself then you realise that no one controlls your life. God ???? was all the religious books written by man ??? hell yes, none were written by woman or if some where were are they ??? men rule the world and always have and always will..I'm sorry ladies but that is the way it is, I know some girls are going to harp on here about god only knows what now but this is about god NOT YOU LADIES ok! just stating some facts here. So the books were written by men in times of trouble to restore order..like when your father used to scare you when you were a child if you were being bold...same was used years ago, like old wives tales...now we laugh at them because of science and common knowledge. And which god is the correct one...none becuase each one was made up to suit the culture of that area..like.. as if Jesus looked like a beegee he was from an area were people looked more like Osama and as for the Muslims faith we don't even see any pics of Mo so you see were I'am going....it's made up to keep people in check and to keep order, just look at the Catholic church when it first started out popes were raping women and killing eachother...if there was a god he would have done something...look at what he did in the old testament to people who crossed him...well was suppose to do. See they are the same god in both the new and the old testament so how come in one book he is on a mad one and in another he is all loving and caring....mellowing in his old age....na he doesn't exist..well not the way we look at him or what we are led to believe...someone or something put us here or made this happen but it is human nature to put a face to this or a story to explain it and these are the ones that stuck. Now we have science and a lot of our way of thinking has changed and will continue to change and as for Pascal's...come on more drivel from a fruitloop, there are ways to explain things but this fella just came out with one hell of a cracker that covers every possility so scrap that straight away. If you have a brain and can think like a normal person and see how far we've come from the caves..oh! yeah that never happened either because if we believe the books the earth is only 12000 years old or so hahahaha! and when we come up with some fossils dating back millions of years the religious people say "the devil put them there or god put them there to test us"..I could goon for hours about this but in the end religion kills and still does to this day and will as long as we let it dictate our lives. I'm not saying don't believe in god but don't believe in books written by man that say this is the one true god. Believe in what you want but don't push it on others or laugh at someones believes because they are different, that is what religion has done to this world since day one, so god exists to those who want him to exist in their lives doesn't mean we all have to follow but just don't push it on people....after all....no one knows what happens to us when we die so no proof no arguement...live and let live and peace will follow

20goto10

Wibbs wrote: »

Maybe that's the sticking point for some? The god bit. You can name it whichever way you like, but I do believe it exists. Both the religious and the non religious can take from that what they will. The religious can say "aha you see we're "designed" to know god and that proves he exists" and the non religious can say "aha our brains have an evolutionarily advantageous part, that is no longer required and that proves we created the idea of god ourselves". Everyone's happy.

You could think if it in a similar why to language. We all have the ability to use this part of our brain, but how we use it depends on external influences. An Irish person is not born with an Irish accent. A japanese person is no more predisposed to speaking Japanses than an Italian is. It all depends on external factors.

To say we have a God part of a brain is akin to saying a Japanses person has a Japanese language part of the brain. The brain doesn't know what Japanese is, its simply carrying out instructions in that particular way. Nor does it know what a God or spirituality is. Its simply carrying out instructions. And what I believe is that the parts of the brain carrying out these instructions came about theough evolution for a very different reason other than to be spiritual.

Wibbs

20goto10 wrote: »

To say we have a God part of a brain is akin to saying a Japanses person has a Japanese language part of the brain. The brain doesn't know what Japanese is, its simply carrying out instructions in that particular way.

A good analogy, but I would refine it further, I would say its more the overall language part rather than the Japanese part. One may be raised to speak Japanese, but you are born to speak some language. In tha same way you may be raised to be Hindu, but you are born with a propensity to "spiritual" thought. Of course it can can come out in all sorts of ways, including scientific curiousity..

Nor does it know what a God or spirituality is. Its simply carrying out instructions. And what I believe is that the parts of the brain carrying out these instructions came about theough evolution for a very different reason other than to be spiritual.

Then how come it is one of the most pervasive concepts in all of humanity? It's up there with language.

DapperGent

Wibbs wrote: »

Maybe that's the sticking point for some? The god bit. You can name it whichever way you like, but I do believe it exists.

Why like?

20goto10

Wibbs wrote: »

Then how come it is one of the most pervasive concepts in all of humanity? It's up there with language.

Because, going back to the point about listening to our elders, it comes from the most important trait we have. That is to avoid danger. A trait so important it ignores nothing. If you are told a berry is poisonous and don't eat one, what does it matter if it is really poisonous or not? Not eating it will still avoid any potential danger. Its a trait which is wide open to negative influence.

This sense of dnager can be seen in practical sense. A religious person is scared of not believing. There is a sense of danger which stops them, a sense of comfort in believing. Its not because of a spiritual influence, its your brain hijacked into believing something is a danger when its not. And as far as the brain is concern, so what? If its not true then there's still no danger.

Dades

laughin'joe wrote: »

...

I like the cut of your jib, laughin'joe. Well said.

20goto10

When you think about it, religion is actually a very good example of why there is no God. It's an example of how flawed and chaotic the evolutionary process is. Things do not evolve for a reason, but rather their are consequences to each evolutionary process. Consequences which are not controlled.

As well as that, If there was a God and he wanted to let us know about, then we would know...period. There would be no debate.

Wibbs

DapperGent wrote: »

Why like?

Not god obviously. I mean the "god" part of the brain, for reasons I outlined before.

20goto10 wrote:

Because, going back to the point about listening to our elders, it comes from the most important trait we have. That is to avoid danger. A trait so important it ignores nothing. If you are told a berry is poisonous and don't eat one, what does it matter if it is really poisonous or not? Not eating it will still avoid any potential danger. Its a trait which is wide open to negative influence.

OK and I can see where you're going and it is certainly part of it, but I do think it's more than that.

The pervasiveness of spiritual thought for a start. It is literally everywhere in every culture that we know off. That meditative part of the brain if you will. There are as I've said quite a few studies that show the feeling of god or spirituality can be induced and reproduced in the lab. How can one explain that? OK it may be a fault, or it may as I argue be a holdover from a time when evolution selected for a belief system, that has now been replaced for many by scientific reality. Though even there there are scientists that claime to be religious of many different faiths. I say whatever gets you through the night. I don't agree with Dawkins when he has intimated that those scientists must be by definition incapable of good science or are bad scientists. To be fair to the man, I do think he has been pigeonholed and backed into a corner by both sides into appearing a zealot(someone I know met him and (surprisingly for some) described him as a very gentle considerate man).

Now I can understand the reticence among some atheists/agnostics to attribute a "god" section in the brain or in our psyche. I've noted it before in a few. The zealot types. Indeed one could argue(and granted it is a lazy comparison) that reticence is similar to the reticence of the religious when faced with atheistic argument too. The two "belief" systems* while poles apart in attitude and belief can be quite similar in response if questioned on certain subjects. The heels dig on and the idea of going beyond a tacit in argument acknowledgment of the other position can be a step too far.

To recap; any construct that has been around for so long and in every culture thus far studied, a construct that even in the face of new knowledge that should knock it down, must have some evolutionary advantage to have such a grip for so long. Even if that evolutionary advantage has run it's course. I'm not suggesting it has relevance today, except maybe as a part to play in the contemplative nature of thought, merely that it may well be a part of our amazing journey to this point, both good and bad and can still have resonance for some and they're not to be dismissed for it outright.



*I'm even careful to parenthesise "belief" lest some get twitchy:)

Wibbs

20goto10 wrote: »

When you think about it, religion is actually a very good example of why there is no God.

That'll go down well with the religious:D

It's an example of how flawed and chaotic the evolutionary process is.

I suppose it is yes. At least from our limited viewpoint.

Things do not evolve for a reason, but rather their are consequences to each evolutionary process. Consequences which are not controlled.

Well the very nature of whether an organism or idea survives is a "control" all of it's own.

As well as that, If there was a God and he wanted to let us know about, then we would know...period. There would be no debate.

Yes but one could argue that if a God exists, it may actually want what we define as confusion for it's own reasons. Reasons that our minds, though the cleverest thing we know, could not understand. If a God did exist it's "mind" for want of a better word would be so distant to our own and our viewpoint of reality and purpose, to argue about how it would think and what it would want is largely a dead end. Indeed that would be a major issue I would have with religion itself.

Soul Winner

20goto10 wrote: »

There was one simple question which started the ball rolling for me. I'd say I was about 8 years old and nobody could give me a straight answer to the question "If God created everything then who created God?".
p.s I'm still waiting for an answer.

When Scientists (who maintain that our universe is eternal) are asked “What started our universe?”, they invariably reply that our universe is eternal and therefore has no beginning and therefore has no cause, and like such are met with little refutation on this matter because the assumptions appear well thought out and academic...

But when the theist even suggests that God is eternal and thus has no beginning and hence no cause, he is met with laughter and much ridicule.

But in relation to our observable universe, all the astrophysical evidence points to a beginning point of the universe in the finite past called the “Big Bang“, therefore concluding that it (our Universe) had a beginning and hence is not eternal. The question then should be "What caused that beginning?" Was it "Nothing?" or "God?" If "nothing" caused it then an explanation has to be given as to how “nothing” (defined as not only "not-a-thing" but as "no-potential-for-anything") can create everything (we observe in our universe today) from "nothing" and BY "nothing", to the delicate balance of life permitting properties we observe today?????

These are the choices we are left with despite the propositions some might SEGUE into, i.e. Infinite regress, Oscillating Universes and so on

At some point there had to be a beginning, and seeing that we can only observe the universe we “actually” live in, we have to infer one or other explanation. Because inferring hypothetical explanations that are as improvable as the God hypotheses just leads to self refutation which means we must deduce either/or of the other two choices. So which is it?

If the universe is not eternal then what started it rolling? And if what started it rolling is not part of the universe then how can it be something that started rolling? In other words: How can something "non-eternal" create and "keep-rolling" something like our universe which is also "non eternal"? If this “Something" is not “God” then it is “Nothing”. So my question is, “How can “Nothing” do this?

evercloserunion

Soul Winner wrote: »

Just curious as to what individual facts convinced you atheists that there is no God. Was it something that you were just born with? Something you learned in life? Or, as a one time believer in God something that simply turned that belief on it's head. What was it? I want to know because I feel I can help you just kidding, I'm actually just curious to know.

But I might as well say it now, does your answer actually prove that there is no God? If not, then why hold so fast to such unstable ground? Pascal's wager puts forth that the following: That between the possibility of whether there is or is not a God there is even odds. i.e. 1/1 for belief and 1/1 against belief. But it makes much better sense to believe in God than not. Why? Because if there is a God and you bet that there isn't then you lose everything. And if there is a God and you bet that there is then you gain everything. But if there isn't a God and you bet that there is then you lose nothing and if there isn't a God and you bet there isn't then you gain nothing. So logic dictates that one should believe in God. If I were an atheist, then this would grab me by the short and curlys. Because we know from many of the discussions here that God is unfalsifiable and therefore cannot be proven or dis-proven to exist by the scientific method and therefore either exists or doesn't, i.e. even odds. So it logically follows from Pascal's wager that its is better to believe in God than to not believe in Him even if in reality He doesn't exist, because we don't – or can't – actually know that yet. There is not an atheist on the planet that KNOWS that there is no God, only atheists with varying degrees in belief that there is no God but none that actually knows.

Anyway I'd still like to know what convinced you that there is no God.

But doesn't pretending to positively believe in God because it would be better for you on the slight offchance that he might exist defeat the purpose of faith? In fact, isn't it rather fraudulent?

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

(I'm not sure "god" even counts as an alternative)

Why not?

Soul Winner

evercloserunion wrote: »

But doesn't pretending to positively believe in God because it would be better for you on the slight offchance that he might exist defeat the purpose of faith?

Pretending???

evercloserunion

Soul Winner wrote: »

Pretending???

Well yeah. Pretending to yourself as well as to others. Pascal's wager is based on the idea that God rewards believers and punishes non-believers. Believers, as in someone who thinks God exists. Honestly believes he exists.

If you say that you believe in God because you don't actually know whether or not he exists and that, if he existed, it would be better for you if you did believe then you don't really believe at all.

toomevara

Working on a neuro ward. It quickly became clear to me that all we are, our personality, our uniqueness, what is often referred to by God botherers as our 'soul', is a product of complex neurological and physiological interactions and nothing more.

Damage that, or alter it in any way and you become a different person. 'You' are no longer what 'you' were. There is no immutable 'soul' at your core that is uniquely you. Anyone who spends a day or two on any neurological ward speaking to patients, relatives etc and still believes in the existence of a God, is, imho, like one of those creationists who go to the natural history museum, view the accumulated paleontology and pronounce the whole thing an elaborate satanic conspiracy to discredit their ante-diluvian world view because the alternative is far to scary to comprehend or deal with.

Soul Winner

evercloserunion wrote: »

Well yeah. Pretending to yourself as well as to others. Pascal's wager is based on the idea that God rewards believers and punishes non-believers. Believers, as in someone who thinks God exists. Honestly believes he exists.
If you say that you believe in God because you don't actually know whether or not he exists and that, if he existed, it would be better for you if you did believe then you don't really believe at all.

Well if I didn't really believe he exists then I wouldn’t Honestly believe he exists would I?
Pascal's wager is not based on "the idea that God rewards believers and punishes non-believers". Rather it is based on the wager of the belief in the "Existence or non Existence" of God, not on the consequences for believing either/or. If the consequences for believing either/or are either eternal bliss or eternal torment, then that is up to the person who wagers either/or.

Soul Winner

toomevara wrote: »

Working on a neuro ward. It quickly became clear to me that all we are, our personality, our uniqueness, what is often referred to by God botherers as our 'soul', is a product of complex neurological and physiological interactions and nothing more.

Damage that, or alter it in any way and you become a different person. 'You' are no longer what 'you' were. There is no immutable 'soul' at your core that is uniquely you. Anyone who spends a day or two on any neurological ward speaking to patients, relatives etc and still believes in the existence of a God, is, imho, like one of those creationists who go to the natural history museum, view the accumulated paleontology and pronounce the whole thing an elaborate satanic conspiracy to discredit their ante-diluvian world view because the alternative is far to scary to comprehend or deal with.

So working on an neuro ward automatically entitles you to the ultimate answers to our existance. How handy is that? Can I get a job there?

toomevara

Soul Winner wrote: »

So working on an neuro ward automatically entitles you to the ultimate answers to our existance. How handy is that? Can I get a job there?

Oh dear, quite chippy. The OP (your good self, I believe) asks, and I quote, "What convinced you ". My response was merely an attempt to respond to your question, which I had, erroneously, it appears, assumed was asked in a spirit of genuine enquiry/debate and not as an attempt to provide a launchboard to browbeat and harangue. Thats my answer, freely and fairly given, take it or leave it....I pretend to no higher spiritual or esoteric knowledge...merely a personal response to a personal question...sorry if it offends you, but then, I find thats the default setting for most of you God-freaks, is it not?

pH

Soul Winner wrote: »

So working on an neuro ward automatically entitles you to the ultimate answers to our existance. How handy is that? Can I get a job there?

Well it seems to me that it would require logic and rationality in the diagnosis and treatment of patients, coupled with empathy, kindness and understanding, none of which you've displayed to any great extent in your posts here, so I guess the question is: could you get a job there?

DinoBot

Soul Winner wrote: »

But in relation to our observable universe, all the astrophysical evidence points to a beginning point of the universe in the finite past called the “Big Bang“, therefore concluding that it (our Universe) had a beginning and hence is not eternal. The question then should be "What caused that beginning?" Was it "Nothing?" or "God?" If "nothing" caused it then an explanation has to be given as to how “nothing” (defined as not only "not-a-thing" but as "no-potential-for-anything") can create everything (we observe in our universe today) from "nothing" and BY "nothing", to the delicate balance of life permitting properties we observe today?????

People who try to explain their religion by science are building their houses on sand because the main difference with religion and science is that science will change and adapt to whats true.

The big bang theory is slowly being broken down. This is an article from back in 2004 but its theory is gaining more ground now as evidance is coming in. Science is now telling us that our universe did not coming from a single point at a "beginning" but was in fact caused from another universe.

"Cosmologists Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok have a radical idea that could wipe away these mysteries. They theorize that the cosmos was never compacted into a single point and did not spring forth in a violent instant. Instead, the universe as we know it is a small cross section of a much grander universe whose true magnitude is hidden in dimensions we cannot perceive."

http://discovermagazine.com/2004/feb/cover

with the launch of L.I.S.A in 2011 they hope to be able to view the big bang and beyond and observe the universe that caused the creation of our universe.

http://www.esa.int/esaSC/120376_index_0_m.html

Ciaran500

Soul Winner wrote: »

If the universe is not eternal then what started it rolling? And if what started it rolling is not part of the universe then how can it be something that started rolling? In other words: How can something "non-eternal" create and "keep-rolling" something like our universe which is also "non eternal"? If this “Something" is not “God” then it is “Nothing”. So my question is, “How can “Nothing” do this?

You're applying the laws of our universe to something that is outside these laws, the creation of our universe. We have no idea how matter acts outside our universe and we can't even begin to guess how it does. So any speculation on before the universe is completely unfounded.

Also what scientists "maintain that our universe is eternal"?

toomevara

pH wrote: »

so I guess the question is: could you get a job there?

Lol! Of course he/she could, more than welcome, Thats the great thing about where I work. Without wishing to paint too toe-curlingly utopic a vision, a team of people of all faiths and none, working together, united by their basic humanity and a wish to help fellow human beings....without, I may add labelling/judging...

Dades

toomevara wrote: »

merely a personal response to a personal question...sorry if it offends you, but then, I find thats the default setting for most of you God-freaks, is it not?

That's too personal for my liking. Careful now.