This is why I think God exists.

munsterdevil

Hmmm, I was reading over that exchange alright and not all of them were addressed, not to worry, the two of ye must be pretty exhausted at this stage!

nozzferrahhtoo

raah! wrote: »

That's not something that's known. But arguing about probability in the light of this only shows you don't understand the premises of fine tuning.

There is no "premise" there is only a wholesale assumption, which I already pointed out.

The entire flaw of the "fine tuning" argument is to falsely extrapolate that because everything falls apart if you change ONE parameter, then therefore ALL the parameters must be exactly as they are.

If you want to keep making such a false extrapolation yourself, then so be it, but do not at any stage presume to act like we did not explain the error to you. However you do make this error when you make statements like:

There would be no planets, no complex elements, which formed in the planets, and then no complex arrangements of those atoms, called life.

Again I suggest you read this:

http://www.atheist.ie/2009/04/our-tune-might-not-be-so-fine-at-all/

Sam Vimes

raah! wrote: »

I think it explains those things I cited anyway.

No it doesn't really because an all powerful being should be able to show how he actually is to people without them adding their own layers of obfuscation to it

raah! wrote: »

Not necessarily, there is more than one way to say something, there is more than one way to describe the truth.


This isn't true because of what you said up there being not true.


Again I will reference the hindu religion, there are different incarnations of god, but these can be seen as the same thing. So one person has a religious experience and sees and elephant, another sees another hindu thing, but it's the same thing. That means they are all right.


Different does not mean wrong.

Well if we take this example, they are both saying "if you don't believe in God you'll not be saved", but like the hindus they have different ideas of what god looks like. I think they are more similar thatn dissimilar.

It's also a bit silly because, it would be absurd to say that christianity and islam are only "broadly similar" (if broadly similar is to be interpreted as some sort of bad thing for some reason), they worship the same god.


Well you seem to be criticising the terminology, I do remember saying "the same in their kernal", and you can switch to this if you'd like.

I have one opinion, I mean one specific thing by it. If someone does not interpret my opinion the same way as me they are wrong. In this case different does indeed mean wrong. When there is one truth there are only two ways to interpret it, the right way and the wrong way. The same can be said of the bible. when it was written each author had one specific meaning to convey so there is one right way to interpret the bible. The only difference between my opinion and the bible is that if someone interprets my opinion differently to how I meant it I can correct them but the authors of the bible are dead so everyone is free to take whatever meaning they want from it because there is no way to verify if their interpretation is correct.


When you say "they are both saying 'if you don't believe in God you'll not be saved'" you're just playing with words; believing in "god" entails different things in each religion and believing in one of the gods requires not believing in the other. You might remember "We believe in the one true god, the father the almighty...". You are right to bring up Hinduism though, my argument does not really apply to it or any polytheistic faith. Within those faiths it is entirely possible for people to have different interpretations of the gods that are simultaneously correct but the same cannot be said of Christianity or Islam. They allow for only one interpretation to be correct, the one true interpretation, and Hinduism does not allow for the interpretations of Christianity and Islam to be correct because they exclude the other interpretations within Hinduism. If Hinduism is right then the different interpretations within Hinduism are right but Christianity and Islam are wrong and if either Christianity or Islam are right then one branch within one of them is right and all of the others are wrong. You are right to say that the different faiths are similar (because human beings are similar) but they are not the same, they are not even compatible. If they were different but compatible you might have a point but they're not, so you don't

raah!

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

There is no "premise" there is only a wholesale assumption, which I already pointed out.

premise |ˌprɛmɪs|
noun Logic
a previous statement or proposition from which another is inferred or follows as a conclusion : if the premise is true, then the conclusion must be true.
• an assertion or proposition which forms the basis for a work or theory : the fundamental premise of the report.

I'm not gonna spell out to you the incorectness of what you just said, but it would be helpful for you to study this definition.

The entire flaw of the "fine tuning" argument is to falsely extrapolate that because everything falls apart if you change ONE parameter, then therefore ALL the parameters must be exactly as they are.

I read that in the last post, only one paramater is necessary to declare fine tuning. The cosmological constant. Saying you can "vary the others to make up with this" is the same as not changing anything. It's a very weak argument. It's just saying "what if you don't change anything, then it would be the same". There are other parameters there, which can be varied to within like 20% or something of their values, none of them are as fine as the cosmological constant (mind you, I read about all this about 6 years ago). I showed how 20% is enough to be called fine in the light of an infinite set, like the real numbers.

If you want to keep making such a false extrapolation yourself, then so be it, but do not at any stage presume to act like we did not explain the error to you. However you do make this error when you make statements like:

Yeah, because if you didn't change the parameters, they wouldn't be changed! That's your super powered argument. The point is the balance is fine. What's more there is more than one fined tuned constant, stephen hawking gives an example of one. Another fact is you've misinterpreted it completely. Another thing to note is that, where i'm sure you love the old argument from authority to explain why you believe everything you do, note that fine tuning was come up with by physicists who know far more than you about it.

Now, I'll also say, I don't care about the fine tuned argument. If I hear a counter to it, like for example the fact that there are multiverses all over the gaff or something like that. I'll go "huh" at the moment, these things saying "if there's an infinite number of choices it will happen eventually" just show a massive misunderstanding.

raah!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No it doesn't really because an all powerful being should be able to show how he actually is to people without them adding their own layers of obfuscation to it

Well are we talking about an omnipotent one now or the christian one? There are a million answers with the christian one such as he wanted faith, or he did this or that. The "should be able" is on thing, but would people be able to comprehend it. And you could say, he could miracle it so they could, which would involve changing many things about the universe, and also serve as a detriment to free will.

Free will is a pretty massive all invasive thing. If you remove it you see how much has been removed. It's free will at the end of the day that makes people different from rocks.

I have one opinion, I mean one specific thing by it. If someone does not interpret my opinion the same way as me they are wrong.

Ok, say you have such an opinion, and then goes on and is said in french and in german. That's differently phrased but the same. Not all opinions are like this either and not all opinions are fully right. Some only in their kernal. And again, these are things which precede picking your religion. People will cite reasons while one religion appeals to their sensibilities and another does not.

In this case different does indeed mean wrong. When there is one truth there are only two ways to interpret it, the right way and the wrong way.

When it is the case of religions, it is a massive collection of statements. It's not "one truth" it's many truths. For most religions, it would be silly to argue that their main point is not their particular deity. If you'd like to argue that religions have more important conceptual features than their respective deities then do so. Now, christianity, judaism, islam have the same deity. They're very similar religions. Their practices are different. But we can agree that when it comes to coneceptions of god, they are the exact same. We could go on to look at hindu perceptions of their ultimate god, which is that it's compassionate, omnipotent, omniscient etc. This shows it's very similar, and I wouldn't be surprised if using the nature of those words there you could prove that they can only apply to one thing.

The same can be said of the bible. when it was written each author had one specific meaning to convey so there is one right way to interpret the bible. The only difference between my opinion and the bible is that if someone interprets my opinion differently to how I meant it I can correct them but the authors of the bible are dead so everyone is free to take whatever meaning they want from it because there is no way to verify if their interpretation is correct.

Another important difference is what I mentioned yesterday about the bible's complexity. It's not one opinion.

When you say "they are both saying 'if you don't believe in God you'll not be saved'" you're just playing with words; believing in "god" entails different things in each religion and believing in one of the gods requires not believing in the other. You might remember "We believe in the one true god, the father the almighty...".

Well, If I sit here and say there is only one god, or indeed anyone does, but that there are different religions. What conclusion would the difference of religions bring you to? Note also, differing religions with almost identical definitions of god, but different practices. Now of course, some religions are more sophisticated than others, and will agree less with less peoples sensibilities, though perhaps that will not be so easily accepted in this forum.

You are right to bring up Hinduism though, my argument does not really apply to it or any polytheistic faith.

It wouldn't be difficult to argue that hinduism is in fact monotheistic, and that they are different interpretations of the one thing. People who believe in shiva believe in shiva, not the other one, and people who believe in the other one believe in the other one.

Within those faiths it is entirely possible for people to have different interpretations of the gods that are simultaneously correct but the same cannot be said of Christianity or Islam. They allow for only one interpretation to be correct, the one true interpretation, and Hinduism does not allow for the interpretations of Christianity and Islam to be correct because they exclude the other interpretations within Hinduism.

Yes, it's all well and good that religions say they are the proper interpretations. But that does not mean that they are talking about different things. An obvious example of this, is the easy one, christianity and islam, they are talking (and say they are) about the same god , so this contradicts your "why doesn't god show himself the same", but suggests rather that "god's teachings" have been different at the two different times, or something like that. There are a million things we could say about the word of this or that being channelled through different people.

If Hinduism is right then the different interpretations within Hinduism are right but Christianity and Islam are wrong and if either Christianity or Islam are right then one branch within one of them is right and all of the others are wrong. You are right to say that the different faiths are similar (because human beings are similar) but they are not the same, they are not even compatible. If they were different but compatible you might have a point but they're not, so you don't

It's important to remember what we've been arguing now, the faiths are not the same, and if you accept that part in different faiths where it says "the other ones are wrong" then of course they are incompatible. But we have been aruing about them being the same, being not different, not contradictory, and I maintain that in their important points they are extremely similar. Also, it would be nice to have some multi-religion expert to talk to us about how much it is a given that the different major religions say "the other ones are going to hell/whatever", as you know, in the case of the bible, two thousand years on interpretation is not a straight forward matter.

What's more, let's take a favoured route by new athiests and say. Loads of people had a seisure and came up with a similar idea. Now it's likely that the lack of oxygen or whatever caused similar sensations/perceptions. They went on to found religions, and the most reasonable way to explain why they would say "the other ones are wrong" is that they wanted power or something like that. Or that they simply preferred their own seisure.

But looking at the religions from the outside as one can, one sees many more similarities than dissimilarities. To say that they are different because each one says "the other ones are wrong!" does not make them more different than they are similar.

Sam Vimes

raah! wrote: »

Well are we talking about an omnipotent one now or the christian one? There are a million answers with the christian one such as he wanted faith, or he did this or that. The "should be able" is on thing, but would people be able to comprehend it. And you could say, he could miracle it so they could, which would involve changing many things about the universe, and also serve as a detriment to free will.

Free will is a pretty massive all invasive thing. If you remove it you see how much has been removed. It's free will at the end of the day that makes people different from rocks.

our free will is limited in a million different ways, e.g. I do not have the free will to walk on the surface of the sun. If god cannot show his true nature and give a consistent message to everyone that he gives an experience to without affecting free will then he is not omnipotent.

raah! wrote: »

Ok, say you have such an opinion, and then goes on and is said in french and in german. That's differently phrased but the same. Not all opinions are like this either and not all opinions are fully right. Some only in their kernal. And again, these are things which precede picking your religion. People will cite reasons while one religion appeals to their sensibilities and another does not.

When it is the case of religions, it is a massive collection of statements. It's not "one truth" it's many truths. For most religions, it would be silly to argue that their main point is not their particular deity. If you'd like to argue that religions have more important conceptual features than their respective deities then do so. Now, christianity, judaism, islam have the same deity. They're very similar religions. Their practices are different. But we can agree that when it comes to coneceptions of god, they are the exact same. We could go on to look at hindu perceptions of their ultimate god, which is that it's compassionate, omnipotent, omniscient etc. This shows it's very similar, and I wouldn't be surprised if using the nature of those words there you could prove that they can only apply to one thing.


Another important difference is what I mentioned yesterday about the bible's complexity. It's not one opinion.


Well, If I sit here and say there is only one god, or indeed anyone does, but that there are different religions. What conclusion would the difference of religions bring you to? Note also, differing religions with almost identical definitions of god, but different practices. Now of course, some religions are more sophisticated than others, and will agree less with less peoples sensibilities, though perhaps that will not be so easily accepted in this forum.


It wouldn't be difficult to argue that hinduism is in fact monotheistic, and that they are different interpretations of the one thing. People who believe in shiva believe in shiva, not the other one, and people who believe in the other one believe in the other one.


Yes, it's all well and good that religions say they are the proper interpretations. But that does not mean that they are talking about different things. An obvious example of this, is the easy one, christianity and islam, they are talking (and say they are) about the same god , so this contradicts your "why doesn't god show himself the same", but suggests rather that "god's teachings" have been different at the two different times, or something like that. There are a million things we could say about the word of this or that being channelled through different people.


It's important to remember what we've been arguing now, the faiths are not the same, and if you accept that part in different faiths where it says "the other ones are wrong" then of course they are incompatible. But we have been aruing about them being the same, being not different, not contradictory, and I maintain that in their important points they are extremely similar. Also, it would be nice to have some multi-religion expert to talk to us about how much it is a given that the different major religions say "the other ones are going to hell/whatever", as you know, in the case of the bible, two thousand years on interpretation is not a straight forward matter.

What's more, let's take a favoured route by new athiests and say. Loads of people had a seisure and came up with a similar idea. Now it's likely that the lack of oxygen or whatever caused similar sensations/perceptions. They went on to found religions, and the most reasonable way to explain why they would say "the other ones are wrong" is that they wanted power or something like that. Or that they simply preferred their own seisure.

But looking at the religions from the outside as one can, one sees many more similarities than dissimilarities. To say that they are different because each one says "the other ones are wrong!" does not make them more different than they are similar.

What this all amounts to is you focussing only on the similarites in the different religions and ignoring the gaping differences to fit your theory that all religious experiences are true. A fine example of confirmation bias. Christianity and Islam do not have the "same god", they have similar gods. If the gods were the same the teachings would be the same for the same reason that if two people ask me my opinion they will get the same answer because I have only one opinion, not different ones depending on who's asking. you are right to say "it's not "one truth" it's many truths" but if two statements contradict each other they cannot both be true. No matter what kind of word play you engage in this remains a fact.

And unless every world religion is identical it remains a fact that all but one interpretation within one religion is wrong, if any of them are actually right, that is unless god is fcuking with peoples heads by giving them different messages. The idea that god is giving people the same message but people are interpreting it differently does not change the fact that everyone who interpreted it in a way other than the single way that god intended is wrong. These are not subjective opinions where there is no right or wrong, these people are making factual statements of the type "God wants you to do X", "God doesn't want you to do Y", "God performed X miracle but not Y miracle", "There is one god", "There are X gods", "God raised from the dead in Israel", "God had an angel appear to Mohammed" etc etc etc. These statements cannot all be true


You are free to choose whichever interpretation you prefer using whatever reasoning you prefer because, unlike in science, there is no way to verify which if any of the interpretations is correct. But under no circumstances can you choose to believe every interpretation because they contradict each other. They are similar but the differences are nowhere near as unimportant as you are trying to make out. You must pick a single interpretation which requires you to assert the falsehood of all of the other interpretations

MagicMarker

So, i haven't read any of the last few pages. Would I be right in assuming there's still no evidence for God?

krudler

MagicMarker wrote: »

So, i haven't read any of the last few pages. Would I be right in assuming there's still no evidence for God?

Not a shred, same as always.

Obni

use logic please wrote: »

If we consider the sequence X1, X2, X3,... There must have been something, let's call it Xn, which created itself, if there wasn't such an Xn, then nothing would ever have managed to exist, because the sequence leading to the existence of what exists now would never have started.

Your argument thus far simply states that given the assumption that time and space had a single starting point at some finite time in the past, then any sequence of cause and effect events can be traced back to some prime mover, "Xn".

use logic please wrote: »

Now, in light of the fact that we have the above problem, the fact that things do exist can be explained only the creative action of some thing which is not constrained, as people are, by time and space. This thing which transcends time and space is God.

So, now you've taken the irrational leap from calling that possible prime mover "Xn", to deciding that that "Xn" is identical to the cultural artifact "God".
I say irrational not because it isn't a possible solution, but because what started out as an apparent logical explanation, suddenly shifted gear and has become a simple declaration of faith. You creates a sequence of arguments X1 because X2 because X3 because ... because Xn-1 because <leap> God; which has no more claim to be based on logic than X1 because <leap> God or even more simply 'any claim' because <leap> God.
Your post "This is why I think God exists" should have been called "I think God exists".

use logic please wrote: »

We humans are absolutely constrained by time and space as far as I know, we cannot think outside of these parameters as far as I know, so assuming that space and time are always constraints on everything, we reach a problem.

This is a far more interesting subject for discussion. Is the true nature of the origin of the universe beyond the present or future capacity of the human brain? Without evolutionary pressure to develop a brain with extended function without immediate reproductive rewards, could it be that we have reached a natural limit (or at least a plateau) for the forseeable future?

raah!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

our free will is limited in a million different ways, e.g. I do not have the free will to walk on the surface of the sun. If god cannot show his true nature and give a consistent message to everyone that he gives an experience to without affecting free will then he is not omnipotent.

I was talking about the very most simple idea of free will. Essentially that we are capable of thinking for ourselves. Someone who is put in a box still has this kind of free will, that's what I was talking about. It can be their "will" that they get out, but they are in a box. I contrast "free will" to "no will" rather than "restricted will".

Here is the definition from which I am operating:
will 2 |wɪl|
noun
1 [usu. in sing. ] the faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action : she has an iron will | a battle of wills between children and their parents | an act of will.
• (also willpower) control deliberately exerted to do something or to restrain one's own impulses : a stupendous effort of will.
• a deliberate or fixed desire or intention : Jane had not wanted them to stay against their will | [with infinitive ] the will to live.
• the thing that one desires or ordains : the disaster was God's will.

What this all amounts to is you focussing only on the similarites in the different religions and ignoring the gaping differences to fit your theory that all religious experiences are true. A fine example of confirmation bias.

I am looking at the similarities in the accounts of God to explain the similarities in the religions. We started by talking about God. Why would God not appear the same to all the religions? I'm saying that he has pretty much, and you have progressed to argue about something else now.

I see what you are saying though, if there is one God then he will be seen the exact same way and say the exact same thing to everyone. Why is this? What kind of god are you talking about?

Christianity and Islam do not have the "same god", they have similar gods. If the gods were the same the teachings would be the same for the same reason that if two people ask me my opinion they will get the same answer because I have only one opinion, not different ones depending on who's asking.

Why if the gods are the same would the teachings be the same? You have yet to provide an argument as to why a theistic god has to tell everyone everything exactly about himself. Why he is opposed to different religions. Note that with a theistic God we have goodness by definition.

you are right to say "it's not "one truth" it's many truths" but if two statements contradict each other they cannot both be true. No matter what kind of word play you engage in this remains a fact.

And of course there are areas where the religions disagree, that's why I mentioned many facts. Yes they contradict each other, but merely repeating this does not constitute a real argument. To hold all this together you must explain why a god has to tell everyone the same thing, why does it have to be not only universally experienced (people don't generally experience things in the same way), but also universally interpreted (people do not generally interpret things in the same way).

And unless every world religion is identical it remains a fact that all but one interpretation within one religion is wrong,

Or that many religions say the same things, and if those same things are the truth then they are all right in part.

if any of them are actually right, that is unless god is fcuking with peoples heads by giving them different messages. The idea that god is giving people the same message but people are interpreting it differently does not change the fact that everyone who interpreted it in a way other than the single way that god intended is wrong.

This requires that you know how god intended it to be interpreted, or whether or not he wanted there to be one interpretation. It also implies that he's giving any message at all. Which is an important consideration.

These are not subjective opinions where there is no right or wrong, these people are making factual statements of the type "God wants you to do X", "God doesn't want you to do Y", "God performed X miracle but not Y miracle", "There is one god", "There are X gods", "God raised from the dead in Israel", "God had an angel appear to Mohammed" etc etc etc. These statements cannot all be true

Those directly contradictory ones of course cannot be true, they are not all directly contradictory. God could want to do X but not Y, the angel could have appeared to two people.

You notice that the only contradictions you've actually pointed out is when religions say "those other ones are wrong", If you can't see how that is a weak argument for their mutual contradiction then I don't know what to say.

You are free to choose whichever interpretation you prefer using whatever reasoning you prefer because, unlike in science, there is no way to verify which if any of the interpretations is correct.

Ok, please don't say "there is no way to verify", it's just wrong. We've been verifying things all day in argument, we haven't been making empircal observations recording the data and fitting it to mathematical models, we have been simply using logic. How you can say those things in the context of a debate is beyond me. And you remember in the last thread I kept saying things like "narrow, education, etc."

But under no circumstances can you choose to believe every interpretation because they contradict each other. They are similar but the differences are nowhere near as unimportant as you are trying to make out. You must pick a single interpretation which requires you to assert the falsehood of all of the other interpretations

One could pick out those similarities of the religions, and believe them all at once, just as christians pick out which parts of the bible they see as the true interpretation.

If we removed the contradictory parts what would we have? Similar religions, but with lots of extra stuff, because there are things like "God did X, God did Y" which become "God did X and Y", and with less things like "if you don't accept this one particular interpretation you're wrong". If your argument about the differences lies on that then I must say that the differences do indeed to seem overwhelmingly unimportant.

use logic please

MagicMarker wrote: »

So, i haven't read any of the last few pages. Would I be right in assuming there's still no evidence for God?

With that attitude, you cannot expect take part in a logical discussion. Since this is an A&A forum, what you've done is a little like going to an Oasis fansite and saying "are oasis good?"

Sam Vimes

raah! wrote: »

I was talking about the very most simple idea of free will. Essentially that we are capable of thinking for ourselves. Someone who is put in a box still has this kind of free will, that's what I was talking about. It can be their "will" that they get out, but they are in a box. I contrast "free will" to "no will" rather than "restricted will".

Here is the definition from which I am operating:
will 2 |wɪl|
noun
1 [usu. in sing. ] the faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action : she has an iron will | a battle of wills between children and their parents | an act of will.
• (also willpower) control deliberately exerted to do something or to restrain one's own impulses : a stupendous effort of will.
• a deliberate or fixed desire or intention : Jane had not wanted them to stay against their will | [with infinitive ] the will to live.
• the thing that one desires or ordains : the disaster was God's will.

Yes if god says that (to pick a random example) his essense is male someone is free to interpret it in such a way that he said it was female. This does not mean that their interpretation is correct.

raah! wrote: »

I am looking at the similarities in the accounts of God to explain the similarities in the religions. We started by talking about God. Why would God not appear the same to all the religions? I'm saying that he has pretty much, and you have progressed to argue about something else now.

Um, no I'm arguing about exactly that point. I'm saying that either he didn't appear the same to all religions or they added their own personal interpretations to the experience that were not actually there. If two people see the same thing and describe it in such a way that there are factual differences, at least one of them is wrong. I don't get what is so hard to understand about this

raah! wrote: »

I see what you are saying though, if there is one God then he will be seen the exact same way and say the exact same thing to everyone. Why is this? What kind of god are you talking about?

Why if the gods are the same would the teachings be the same? You have yet to provide an argument as to why a theistic god has to tell everyone everything exactly about himself. Why he is opposed to different religions. Note that with a theistic God we have goodness by definition.

And of course there are areas where the religions disagree, that's why I mentioned many facts. Yes they contradict each other, but merely repeating this does not constitute a real argument. To hold all this together you must explain why a god has to tell everyone the same thing, why does it have to be not only universally experienced (people don't generally experience things in the same way), but also universally interpreted (people do not generally interpret things in the same way).


Or that many religions say the same things, and if those same things are the truth then they are all right in part.


This requires that you know how god intended it to be interpreted, or whether or not he wanted there to be one interpretation. It also implies that he's giving any message at all. Which is an important consideration.


Those directly contradictory ones of course cannot be true, they are not all directly contradictory. God could want to do X but not Y, the angel could have appeared to two people.

You notice that the only contradictions you've actually pointed out is when religions say "those other ones are wrong", If you can't see how that is a weak argument for their mutual contradiction then I don't know what to say.

So you're saying that god deliberately hid his true nature from people and/or gave them different teachings, each time telling them that this was his one true nature and that these were his one true teachings? Why on earth would he do this?

you also seem to be saying this while simultaneously saying that he gave them all the same experience

raah! wrote: »

Ok, please don't say "there is no way to verify", it's just wrong. We've been verifying things all day in argument, we haven't been making empircal observations recording the data and fitting it to mathematical models, we have been simply using logic. How you can say those things in the context of a debate is beyond me. And you remember in the last thread I kept saying things like "narrow, education, etc."

The only way to verify someone's personal experience is to be inside their brain. Talking about what we think went on in their minds is not verifying it, it's hypothesising.

raah! wrote: »

One could pick out those similarities of the religions, and believe them all at once, just as christians pick out which parts of the bible they see as the true interpretation.

If we removed the contradictory parts what would we have? Similar religions, but with lots of extra stuff, because there are things like "God did X, God did Y" which become "God did X and Y", and with less things like "if you don't accept this one particular interpretation you're wrong". If your argument about the differences lies on that then I must say that the differences do indeed to seem overwhelmingly unimportant.

Well yes we could remove the contradictory parts against the direct explicit instructions of each religion (but I suppose we could remove those instructions too) and what we would be left with is something that vagely resembles all religions but is different to each of the religions that claim to be the one true one

MagicMarker

use logic please wrote: »

With that attitude, you cannot expect take part in a logical discussion. Since this is an A&A forum, what you've done is a little like going to an Oasis fansite and saying "are oasis good?"

Erm, I don't quite understand the analogy you're using there tbh.

Dades

use logic please wrote: »

With that attitude, you cannot expect take part in a logical discussion. Since this is an A&A forum, what you've done is a little like going to an Oasis fansite and saying "are oasis good?"

Twas just a jest, no?

You've witnessed what happens when you start a discussion in A&A and disappear for a length of time. The discussion continues with or without you.

raah!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes if god says that (to pick a random example) his essense is male someone is free to interpret it in such a way that he said it was female. This does not mean that their interpretation is correct.

I don't see how this relates the the passage quoted at all. And these type of things are really ignoring the body of my quotes. That would be correct, the interpretation would be wrong, because male and female are separate, but the analogy does not stand.

Um, no I'm arguing about exactly that point. I'm saying that either he didn't appear the same to all religions or they added their own personal interpretations to the experience that were not actually there. If two people see the same thing and describe it in such a way that there are factual differences, at least one of them is wrong. I don't get what is so hard to understand about this

There are a million assumptions in what you are saying. I believe they were adressed int he lower part of this.

So you're saying that god deliberately hid his true nature from people and/or gave them different teachings, each time telling them that this was his one true nature and that these were his one true teachings? Why on earth would he do this?

I'm saying that this is one possibility. You are going into theology here. There is not just a "god has to tell everyone the same thing". If you think that tell me why, but don't just have it implicitly running through all those other higher level assertions.

you also seem to be saying this while simultaneously saying that he gave them all the same experience

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the experiences need not be the same, the fact is the religions describe gods which are far more similar than they are different. They are extremely similar. In the light of the axiom under which we are both operating (sheerly by the language and arguments we are constructing mind you), the logical thing to say is that this is one god. It's not necessary that the experiences are identical, the important point is that the same God is being described in the same way. People saying different things about what God says to them is not a matter about whether or not they experienced the same god, but a matter of what he said. That's patently obvious.

The only way to verify someone's personal experience is to be inside their brain. Talking about what we think went on in their minds is not verifying it, it's hypothesising.

How do you verify the personal experience scientists use when they observe phenomena and record them? I know you can, but think about how you do. Saying "i could be a scientist" is different. If the only way of verifying things is true scientific method, then nobody really knows anything. No body has enough time in the world to verify every experiment that's ever done. So for one, it's not possible, and even if it was possible, people still wouldn't do it.

Well yes we could remove the contradictory parts against the direct explicit instructions of each religion (but I suppose we could remove those instructions too) and what we would be left with is something that vagely resembles all religions but is different to each of the religions that claim to be the one true one

So we arrive at what could be called a religion. And this religion would again be similar to all those other religions. It would exist as a religion and be largely validated by the others.

And this is easy to do from the outside of religion. People who adhere to particular religions have their reasons, and that's different. To them the religions are not fully compatible, this is not based on just consideration of religion. It's based on rather simple assertions like "if you accept this one the other ones are wrong". I don't see how it makes sense to look at the religions from the outside and then treat these statements of "my one is the right one" as universally invalidating.

Sam Vimes

raah! wrote: »

I'm saying that this is one possibility. You are going into theology here. There is not just a "god has to tell everyone the same thing". If you think that tell me why, but don't just have it implicitly running through all those other higher level assertions.

god is supposed to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

raah! wrote: »

I don't see how this relates the the passage quoted at all. And these type of things are really ignoring the body of my quotes. That would be correct, the interpretation would be wrong, because male and female are separate, but the analogy does not stand.

There are a million assumptions in what you are saying. I believe they were adressed int he lower part of this.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the experiences need not be the same, the fact is the religions describe gods which are far more similar than they are different. They are extremely similar. In the light of the axiom under which we are both operating (sheerly by the language and arguments we are constructing mind you), the logical thing to say is that this is one god. It's not necessary that the experiences are identical, the important point is that the same God is being described in the same way. People saying different things about what God says to them is not a matter about whether or not they experienced the same god, but a matter of what he said. That's patently obvious.

I'll tell you what, how about you pop into the various religious forums and float your idea that there is one god and that all religions are true (and therefore that one is not damned for not following the "one true religion") and see how far you get. The same goes for the idea that god would deliberately hide his nature and give people contradictory teachings

raah! wrote: »

How do you verify the personal experience scientists use when they observe phenomena and record them? I know you can, but think about how you do. Saying "i could be a scientist" is different. If the only way of verifying things is true scientific method, then nobody really knows anything. No body has enough time in the world to verify every experiment that's ever done. So for one, it's not possible, and even if it was possible, people still wouldn't do it.

This is something that religious people often bring up, it fudges the difference between something that I have not personally verified and something that is unverifable. Thousands of scientists can and do verify each others claims, that's the whole point of the scientific process. Science is not based on the authority of any one man, everybody has to submit their work for it to be independently verified by others. Do you honestly see no difference in terms of reliability between something that has been verfied independently by thousands of different people (even if I have not personally verified it) and one man claiming that something appeared to him inside his mind?

raah! wrote: »

So we arrive at what could be called a religion. And this religion would again be similar to all those other religions. It would exist as a religion and be largely validated by the others.

And this is easy to do from the outside of religion. People who adhere to particular religions have their reasons, and that's different. To them the religions are not fully compatible, this is not based on just consideration of religion. It's based on rather simple assertions like "if you accept this one the other ones are wrong". I don't see how it makes sense to look at the religions from the outside and then treat these statements of "my one is the right one" as universally invalidating.

And I don't see how it's doesn't make sense The mere act of saying that your religion is the one true one makes it incompatible with every other. It wouldn't matter if all other teachings of the other religions were exactly the same, even if the also contain a teaching that they are the one true one, you must ignore this teaching in each of the religions in order to make them compatible. And once you ignore any of the teachings of a religion you have asserted that it is at least partially false. And when your religion is based on the idea that a perfect being inspired it, the idea that it is in any way false really doesn't wash

raah!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

god is supposed to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

If this were the case, would not the bible just contain a full scientific account of the universe? Where your getting the idea that it's impossible for god not to tell everyone everything I don't know. But it doesn't just apply to religion.

I'll tell you what, how about you pop into the various religious forums and float your idea that there is one god and that all religions are true (and therefore that one is not damned for not following the "one true religion") and see how far you get. The same goes for the idea that god would deliberately hide his nature and give people contradictory teachings

I referenced this point in my argument. Several times, I said it was different to view them from the outside than it is to view them from the inside.

This is something that religious people often bring up, it fudges the difference between something that I have not personally verified and something that is unverifable. Thousands of scientists can and do verify each others claims, that's the whole point of the scientific process. Science is not based on the authority of any one man, everybody has to submit their work for it to be independently verified by others. Do you honestly see no difference in terms of reliability between something that has been verfied independently by thousands of different people (even if I have not personally verified it) and one man claiming that something appeared to him inside his mind?

I know there is a difference, but at the end of the day, what is being used is an argument from authority. If this is a logical fallacy then everyone who cites an experiment they didn't do is wrong. That is all I'm pointing out, as this is a thing new atheists like to say. There are many other such "fallacies" which are ridiculous.

But science is more communicable, the person having the experience can verify it himself. This does not make one an argument from authority and the other not. In the light of this, I don't see how you can continue to say "argument from authority-fallacy". It is just wholly incorrect. To say scientific community never uses arguments from authority is to not understand what they do, or what an "argument form authority" is.

Also, note there is a difference between "only personally verifiable" and "not verifiable". But as I've said before in response to your original point, we've been verifying things all day. It's quite ironic that you would verify non-scientifically the statement that scientific verification is the only kind of verification.

And I don't see how it's doesn't make sense The mere act of saying that your religion is the one true one makes it incompatible with every other. It wouldn't matter if all other teachings of the other religions were exactly the same, even if the also contain a teaching that they are the one true one, you must ignore this teaching in each of the religions in order to make them compatible.

Ok well this has been gone over.

And once you ignore any of the teachings of a religion you have asserted that it is at least partially false. And when your religion is based on the idea that a perfect being inspired it, the idea that it is in any way false really doesn't wash

Again, a perfect being inspiring something doesn't mean that it's perfectly understood. Would it even be possible for an imperfect being to possess perfect knowledge?

But the main point is that it would not be contradictory for one god to give rise to different images of itself. That is what we have been arguing from the start, but it's gone off track a bit. And that the religions are similar, and heavily compatible. Which is a view I will continue to hold if you do not say something more convincing than "each religion says it's the one true one", because I don't even know that they all say that. Those religions are at the end of the day controlled by people, of course those people would want their versions to be the one true ones.

MagicMarker

Dades wrote: »

Twas just a jest, no?

You've witnessed what happens when you start a discussion in A&A and disappear for a length of time. The discussion continues with or without you.

Speaking of which...

use logic please wrote: »

I'm not one for refusing to debate points, so I will stick around and debate with anyone who wants to. I'm expecting to have a logical discussion, if someone has a good reason to think I've made an illogical point then I'll consider what they've said and reply. This won't be a fleeting once off posting on my part.

So when is this discussion going to start OP?

use logic please

MagicMarker wrote: »

Erm, I don't quite understand the analogy you're using there tbh.

You asked a forum of of atheists and agnostics if there has yet been any evidence given that there is a God. You are asking a biased group, so you're getting a biased answer is what I meant.

MagicMarker

use logic please wrote: »

You asked a forum of of atheists and agnostics if there has yet been any evidence given that there is a God. You are asking a biased group, so you're getting a biased answer is what I meant.

lol

It's not a biased answer, it's the right answer.

Feel free to point me in the direction of the evidence though, I'll happily change my mind once I see/hear it.

Sam Vimes

raah! wrote: »

If this were the case, would not the bible just contain a full scientific account of the universe? Where your getting the idea that it's impossible for god not to tell everyone everything I don't know. But it doesn't just apply to religion.

Not that god should tell them everything, just that god should not tell them contradictory things.

raah! wrote: »

I know there is a difference, but at the end of the day, what is being used is an argument from authority. If this is a logical fallacy then everyone who cites an experiment they didn't do is wrong. That is all I'm pointing out, as this is a thing new atheists like to say. There are many other such "fallacies" which are ridiculous.

But science is more communicable, the person having the experience can verify it himself. This does not make one an argument from authority and the other not. In the light of this, I don't see how you can continue to say "argument from authority-fallacy". It is just wholly incorrect. To say scientific community never uses arguments from authority is to not understand what they do, or what an "argument form authority" is.

Also, note there is a difference between "only personally verifiable" and "not verifiable". But as I've said before in response to your original point, we've been verifying things all day. It's quite ironic that you would verify non-scientifically the statement that scientific verification is the only kind of verification.

Not it's not an argument from authority. I swear it must be a religious person's wet dream to think it is because of the amount of people who come in here trying to tell us that the process that put a man on the moon is no more reliable than the ramblings of a man telling us about the voices in his head but this is simply not the case. If I have any questions whatsoever about a scientific theory I can look up all of the information about how the experiments were performed, how the data was gathered, how rigorously it was tested etc etc etc etc and if I want I can go out and do the verification for myself. No matter how much religious people like to think so, this is not the same as one man saying god appeared to him in a vision and everyone has to either believe him or not based on personal preference because there is no way to find out what kind of personal experience he had or if he had one at all. Science does not require faith, it just requires your eyes. People can choose not to look at the evidence if they want but the difference between that and accepting a religious position is:

1. They are doing it out out choice where the religious person does it out of necessity
2. They are relying on the independent verification of thousands of people who all achieved the same results. Not similar results with contradictions that you need to ignore. The same
3. They are relying on a process that has moved us from living in Caves to landing on the moon. This process has proven its reliability. Religion has not

I also feel the need to point out the same thing I point out to everyone who comes in here to tell us about the failings of science: the irony of typing on a keyboard so move some electrons in a wire so people all around the world can instantly read your words, to tell us about how science is a logical fallacy

raah! wrote: »

Ok well this has been gone over.

Again, a perfect being inspiring something doesn't mean that it's perfectly understood. Would it even be possible for an imperfect being to possess perfect knowledge?

A perfect being should be able to make himself understood. If he can't then he is not omnipotent.

raah! wrote: »

But the main point is that it would not be contradictory for one god to give rise to different images of itself. That is what we have been arguing from the start, but it's gone off track a bit. And that the religions are similar, and heavily compatible. Which is a view I will continue to hold if you do not say something more convincing than "each religion says it's the one true one", because I don't even know that they all say that. Those religions are at the end of the day controlled by people, of course those people would want their versions to be the one true ones.

I would never try to challenge your view that religions are "heavily compatible", they are. I am pointing out that when dealing with the perfect word of god, "heavily compatible" just doesn't cut it. If science accepted "heavily compatible" planes would fall out of the sky so I don't see why this should be good enough for our understanding of a supposedly perfect being

use logic please

MagicMarker wrote: »

lol

It's not a biased answer, it's the right answer.

Feel free to point me in the direction of the evidence though, I'll happily change my mind once I see/hear it.

It is a biased answer, surely you'll give that?

MagicMarker

use logic please wrote: »

It is a biased answer, surely you'll give that?

No, it's the right answer. There is NO evidence, if there is, then show me?

use logic please

MagicMarker wrote: »

No, it's the right answer. There is NO evidence, if there is, then show me?

Most people are on this forum because the are either Atheist or Agnostic, which means that they are biased when the question "is there any evidence of a God?" is asked. Do you agree? What we see around us could be evidence of a God, but Atheists think it's not, so how are they not biased when that question is asked? Agnostics are not so biased I think, but there are so few theists here that you are asking the question to a biased group. Do you think that the group is not biased? Surely a biased group leads to biased answers to questions?

MagicMarker

use logic please wrote: »

Most people are on this forum because the are either Atheist or Agnostic, which means that they are biased when the question "is there any evidence of a God?" is asked. Do you agree? What we see around us could be evidence of a God, but Atheists think it's not, so how are they not biased when that question is asked? Agnostics are not so biased I think, but there are so few theists here that you are asking the question to a biased group. Do you think that the group is not biased? Surely a biased group leads to biased answers to questions?

What we see around us is not evidence for God, just because you say it is doesn't make it so. Even if it was evidence, to which God are you referring?

Sorry, you'll have to provide some better evidence than that.

Ush1

use logic please wrote: »

Most people are on this forum because the are either Atheist or Agnostic, which means that they are biased when the question "is there any evidence of a God?" is asked. Do you agree? What we see around us could be evidence of a God, but Atheists think it's not, so how are they not biased when that question is asked? Agnostics are not so biased I think, but there are so few theists here that you are asking the question to a biased group. Do you think that the group is not biased? Surely a biased group leads to biased answers to questions?

Probably the most un biased term there is.

use logic please

MagicMarker wrote: »

What we see around us is not evidence for God

I said it could be, it's a possibility.
Anyway, I'm going to make my main argument now.

robindch

use logic please wrote: »

Most people are on this forum because the are either Atheist or Agnostic, which means that they are biased when the question "is there any evidence of a God?" is asked. Do you agree?

Most people here have asked themselves this question, reviewed the evidence, and come to a tentative conclusion.

You're only biased if you discard evidence, review it unfairly, or mistakenly assume that something is evidence, when it is not.

use logic please

I should say that my argument depends on an the axiom "Natural existence must occur in space and "linearly"* in time."
I realise that in my first argument (even when you consider that it uses this axiom) I got from the supernatural to Theism too quickly, but I will be happy to make that link later, though I won't be able to make a scientific case simply because I will be discussing the supernatural, so our science won't be applicable. But for now, I'm going to try to give a reasonable case for the existence of the supernatural. So here's my revised argument:
I intend here to argue that the axiom "Natural existence must occur in space and "linearly"* in time" (known from now on as axiom op) is the best axiom we have in 2010, and then to use this axiom. (* This "line of time" may vary in "density" due to special relativity's "time dilation," but as far as I know, in any experimentally well backed up theory time can best thought of by humans as a line.) We humans, as far as I know, have not experienced anything which disobeys this axiom and human experience is all we have to draw from. So, if we want to conduct a discussion in 2010, then this is the best axiom because it is backed up, as far as I know, by all of human experience. Now, using axiom op and discounting the supernatural for a moment, we come to that old chestnut "all existence came from nothing." Now, this seems to be a contradiction when we are using axiom op (it is mainly the linearity which gives this contradiction, I think that one prperty of this linearity is that any existing body must have a predecessor or predecessors.) So now, since we are using this very reasonable axiom op, and we have come to what seems to be a contradiction we can reasonably say that we were wrong to discount the supernatural. I think I've argued a reasonable case for the existence of the supernatural here.
I think that Theism is not far away if the supernatural exists.
But, as I said, I'll discuss that at another time as it is a different question, for now, I'm trying to give a reasonable case for the existence of the supernatural.

raah!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Not that god should tell them everything, just that god should not tell them contradictory things.

Do you see how not telling them everything could lead to contradictory extrapolations of what they were told?

Not it's not an argument from authority. I swear it must be a religious person's wet dream to think it is because of the amount of people who come in here trying to tell us that the process that put a man on the moon is no more reliable than the ramblings of a man telling us about the voices in his head but this is simply not the case.

I'm not saying it's not reliable. It must be an atheists wet dream to reduce every criticism of their interpretation to be a criticism of science itself. I am saying the criticism applies both ways. It doesn't invalidate those men talking about voices in their head because it doesn't invalidate science.

If I have any questions whatsoever about a scientific theory I can look up all of the information about how the experiments were performed, how the data was gathered, how rigorously it was tested etc etc etc etc and if I want I can go out and do the verification for myself.

Yes you would, but you'd have to start at the start to be able to say that your views about this latest experiment were completely empirically based. The only way you can say you've never used an argument from authority the whole way up is if you do any experiment. Not having to use an argument from authority doesn't change the fact that you do. Full stop. If you really think that an argument from authority is a fallacy then off you go to perform those experiments.

No matter how much religious people like to think so, this is not the same as one man saying god appeared to him in a vision and everyone has to either believe him or not based on personal preference because there is no way to find out what kind of personal experience he had or if he had one at all.

I'm not saying that, I'm not saying that they are identical. I merely commenting on your ridiculous criticism and use of the "argument from authority fallacy"

Science does not require faith, it just requires your eyes. People can choose not to look at the evidence if they want but the difference between that and accepting a religious position is:

1. They are doing it out out choice where the religious person does it out of necessity

They are not really doing it out of choice, even the leading physicist cannot verify everything upon which his work is based through experiment. At one point he is going to have to trust the validity of other peoples experiments. But maybe it is possible to verify in one persons lifetime every scientific statement. It would be a waste of time of course, because "the argument from authority" isn't some general fallacy, as you've been using it (mostly in that other thread).

The religious people doing it out of necessity is also not true, they all talk about having experiences and all that jive. They've already accepted this extra dimension or whatever, and most religions emphasise tapping into this through meditation or contemplation or whatever you want.

2. They are relying on the independent verification of thousands of people who all achieved the same results. Not similar results with contradictions that you need to ignore. The same

There are such things as failed experiments, faulty extrapolations, bad methods. To say otherwise is very "religious" sounding.

3. They are relying on a process that has moved us from living in Caves to landing on the moon. This process has proven its reliability. Religion has not

This sort of statement is to be expected in this forum. But it's absurd to say religion has never done anything good for anyone. We could easily go into all the things religion has done, that have "moved us out of caves" so to speak, but I find that kind of discussion unpleasant. Just as it would be beneath someone to talk to some klu klux member about the positives of black people.

I also feel the need to point out the same thing I point out to everyone who comes in here to tell us about the failings of science: the irony of typing on a keyboard so move some electrons in a wire so people all around the world can instantly read your words, to tell us about how science is a logical fallacy

Yes, because that's what I've been doing. That statement is completely irrelevant to the argument I made, you've done it before, and I showed you how it was. So you posted this why? A deliberate straw man?

It's almost as funny as you saying there's no other form of validation but science, except it's completely improperly applied, where as the former was not.

A perfect being should be able to make himself understood. If he can't then he is not omnipotent.

It's not necessarily a point of can and can't. Especially if the assumption of omnipotence or perfection has already been made. In those cases such questions are just stupid. Those assumptions are made in all the religions.

I would never try to challenge your view that religions are "heavily compatible", they are. I am pointing out that when dealing with the perfect word of god, "heavily compatible" just doesn't cut it. If science accepted "heavily compatible" planes would fall out of the sky so I don't see why this should be good enough for our understanding of a supposedly perfect being

I don't understand your analogy with planes, could you clarify that a bit? I don't see a connection between the two parts of the sentence or what accepting "heavily compatible" means in a scientific context. I will remind you that science operates on approximations so heavily compatible can be said to be used alot.

Now, heavily compatible only doesn't cut it if you say "it was gods omnipotent intention to tell everyone the exact same thing and for there to be one religion". That's quite the hefty thing to just have lying there tacitly guiding everything you've said up to this point.

Edit: The op is back, and since it's his thread then perhaps we should hold off and address what he says instead of continuing this. We have discussed most of this before anyway.