If God exists, who invented him?

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

It simply points out to someone who demands a materialist constraint on a creator who is outside of its creation, that it does not follow that a creator must be limited to the same laws as its creation.

As I said, above, it's not a "materialist" constraint (whatever that is, and I certainly don't have a clue), it's a breakdown in logic.

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

it's a breakdown in logic.

No its not. See, I can do that too.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

robindch wrote:

it's a breakdown in logic.

No its not.

Very intricately and carefully argued -- you've certainly convinced me!

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

Very intricately and carefully argued -- you've certainly convinced me!

Oh, you mean as opposed to your very reasoned and logical, 'Its a breakdown in logic'?

JimiTime

b318isp wrote: »

I can accept this point, so long as we are speculating that there was a creator or creative process.

Well thats what the OP speculates, and thats the context of the explanation, so thats the context I've maintained. You seem to be one of the rare few here that actually gets the point never mind accepts it.

JimiTime

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why, because it postulates a god that has to be subject to the universe limitations? Come off it Jimi, dont act the eejit.

LOL. There you go again. I'll leave you be. There's only so many times I can point you away from your tangents.

Mark Hamill

JimiTime wrote: »

LOL. There you go again. I'll leave you be. There's only so many times I can point you away from your tangents.

Thats just dishonest Jimi. Commandment number 9 only a guideline for you too? Pointing out that there actually concepts of god where he would in fact have to be under the limitations of the universe is not a tangent. Its already been pointed out that your logic is of the fingers-in-ears, "la-la-la-I-cant-hear-you" persuasion, do try and learn from your mistakes and actually engage in the debate.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

Oh, you mean as opposed to your very reasoned and logical, 'Its a breakdown in logic'?

Nope, I've already referred to the basic logical problem in the earlier post which you quoted yourself.

And I've no intention of a repeat of the death-by-endless-repetition argument that I had with Jakkass!

Irish Fire

I wonder who did?? Employed a bloody fine sales & marketing company whoever it was.......

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

Nope, I've already referred to the basic logical problem in the earlier post which you quoted yourself.

Nothing there explains the lack of logic you accuse it of. You simply point and laugh at it.

And I've no intention of a repeat of the death-by-endless-repetition argument that I had with Jakkass!

If everywhere you go smells of sh1te, check your shoes;)

strobe

dclane wrote: »

So can we safely say that we as human beings created God in the literal sense? In order for us to try and comprehend the universe we put it down to a divine being who was "uncreated" as he/she/it always existed.

I think I'm slowly getting it now. I think the slow evolution of mans belief in a heavinly energy source (sun) lead to the invention of a rational belief in a greater being.

A long time ago, in a land far far away there lived a group of creatures. Primates, clever ones. While their primate cousins had stayed in the jungles, these guys had left and evolved over time to become even smarter, up to the point where they had developed abstract thinking skills and a complex language.

One group of these primates was lead by an alpha male called Grog. Grog was the biggest baddest fukker around. Seven feet tall if he was an inch, arms like tree trunks, fists like boulders. He ruled over the group, taking the best cuts of mammoth for himself, and keeping all the hottest females to mate with only him.

In this group there was another male called Ugg. Ugg was small and weak and lame in one leg but he was something that Grog was not. Ugg was clever and sly and cunning. But he was also very bitter. Bitter at the group because he only got the scraps from the hunt, bitter at Grog and the bigger males because he had to sit and watch them get all the females he wanted, bitter at the females for never wanting him. But he was kept around by the group because his intelligence and cunning had proved useful. He had helped solve many problems the group came across.

One dark and stormy night (because a narrative needs atmosphere) the group were huddled in a cave out of the wind and rain. Suddenly the sky started to crack and bang as sometimes happened in the worst storms... then there was a flash, and only a few meters from the entrance of the cave a massive spark shot down and blasted into a tree, splitting it straight down the middle.

This naturally terrified the group, who screamed and panicked and hid behind rocks. Then another spark hit down into the ground, and another and another. As happened in situations like this Grog grabbed a hold of Ugg and demanded he explain what was happening. Ugg knowing that the fact that he came up with answers that Grog couldn't was his only worth to the group, thought quickly, and with an angry and frightened Grog lifting him off the ground blurted out the only explanation he could think of... "Grog remember how Ugg found rocks that made sparks when banged together to light fire?? There be big man that live in sky. Ugg seen Him. He bang big rocks in sky. Make sparks." "Why He do this!?" demanded Grog. "He angry. He angry cause He like Ugg and Grog always hitting Ugg!" the frightened Ugg shouted back, and with that to Ugg's surprise and considerable interest, Grog released him.

Ugg looked around the cave, saw the scared and nervous faces on the members of the group huddled there in the cave, saw a wide eyed Grog staring out apprehensively into the dark crackling sky, and his mind went into overdrive.

"That right..." he said towards the main body of the group, his voice shaky. He composed himself, began again. "That right!!!". "Big man live in sky. On clouds. Big angry man with stones!!" This got the gasps he had been hoping for from the group and he grew in confidence. "Big Sky Man very angry that Grog hits Ugg. Big Sky Man say he so angry maybe He burn everybody with sparks from stones, just like tree".

With this several members of the group ducked behind rocks or each other or shuffled back further into the cave, including Grog. Ugg, with everyone looking up at him, went on. "That is. Unless group kill Grog first... Big Sky Man say Grog die, or everybody die..."

Grog turned left and right, looking at the group, turning back to look at Ugg and then to look out into the sky. Right then, a massive noise growled to life in the sky followed by a blinding flash. One of the group, a large frightened male, snapped and rushed up behind Grog as he crouched starring out into the sky and cracked him across the back of the head with a rock. Then again twice more, sending Grog slumping forward, his skull crushed.

As another crack thundered in the sky he spun to Ugg. "He dead! He dead! Tell Big Sky Man not burn us Ugg! Please!!" Ugg thought for a moment, then turned to face out into the cave and raised his hands out at his side. "Big Sky Man? Grog dead! You no burn us now??" and none of them were burnt that night.

The next day Ugg relayed to the group that Big Sky Man had said to him in a dream the previous night after the storm had eventually died down, that there was to be no new alpha male in the group because the only alpha male was Big Sky Man. As the days and weeks went on Ugg let the group know more of the Big Sky Mans wishes. One being that Ugg, being Big Sky Mans messenger on the ground should decide which of the females went with who, including who went with him. Another was that Ugg, being the one that communicated with Big Sky Man, should be the one the cut up the meat after a hunt, so he could say thank you on behalf of the group to Big Sky Man for helping them track down the wilderbeest herd.

Over the months to follow there were other rules from the Big Sky Man too. One was that people were to stop eating wild boar raw. It must be cooked from now on first. Ugg had tried to ask the group to do this weeks before the storm at the cave when he noticed some people were getting sick afterwards. But Grog had loved raw boar and had given Ugg a beating for suggesting it. But now with Grog gone and the message coming from Big Sky Man the group did what Ugg said.

Then a few thousand years later a 16 year old Muslim kid strapped gelignite and a detonator to himself and blow up an ice-cream parlour full of children in Tel Aviv cause Big Sky Man Allah told Ugg Mohamed it would get him into paradise.











{What? I'm bored....}

JimiTime

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Thats just dishonest Jimi. Commandment number 9 only a guideline for you too?

Ah yes, I was wondering when you were going to get here;)

Pointing out that there actually concepts of god where he would in fact have to be under the limitations of the universe is not a tangent.

It is, as it is absolutely irrelevant to the explanation in question and what it seeks to explain, but I'll leave you believe otherwise.

Its already been pointed out that your logic is of the fingers-in-ears, "la-la-la-I-cant-hear-you" persuasion,

You're some man for one man ha ha.

do try and learn from your mistakes and actually engage in the debate.

If only you had any idea of what THE debate actually is.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

Nothing there explains the lack of logic you accuse it of. You simply point and laugh at it.

Yes, laughing at it, while saying what's wrong with it. A point I expanded on in my response to your response.

Anyhow, to head off a goldfish-go-round, the problem is that you cannot define yourself out of a problem, simply (or any other way) by saying that the problem doesn't apply to you. And if your definition of your deity is an "uncaused cause", well, that's no different to a "proof" of say, Ba'al, Allah, Caelus or Zoroaster.

JimiTime wrote: »

If everywhere you go smells of sh1te, check your shoes;)

I do try to avoid stepping in christianity where possible

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

Yes, laughing at it, while saying what's wrong with it. A point I expanded on in my response to your response.

Again, not so. You pointed at it and basically said, 'Oh, how Convenient'. There has been absolutely no effort on your part to show how your accusation of it is anything other than mindless scoffing. Still you just keep saying you did, and point to posts where you did nothing close to that

Anyhow, to head off a goldfish-go-round, the problem is that you cannot define yourself out of a problem, simply (or any other way) by saying that the problem doesn't apply to you.

Its not about defining something out of a problem. You are just exhibiting your cynicism. Again, another varient on a sarcastic 'How Convenient'. However, whether you scoff or not, you still haven't shown in any way that your accusation of lack of logic has any validity.

IF God (X) created the universe (Y), and we can only observe Y and not observe X, and do not know its constraints, if any etc. Then we cannot demand or insist that X is constrained by the same laws as Y.

Thats simply a fact Robin. In order for you to show how your accusation of lack of logic is valid, you need to show how IF the universe is created by being from OUTSIDE the universe it MUST be subjected to the same laws etc of said universe. Something you've not done.

And if your definition of your deity is an "uncaused cause", well, that's no different to a "proof" of say, Ba'al, Allah, Caelus or Zoroaster.

Its not PROOF, how many times has this got to be repeated?? All it aims to show, is that you can't apply the rules of Physics to something outside of physics, and alledgedly created such laws etc. And YES, once again, it can be applied to anything, God or otherwise, who alledgedly created the universe.

this is what perplexes me in this. People like yourself seem to think its some kind of important issue that you can't concede. The thing is, there is nothing to concede. It simply says, and to repeat: IF God (X) created the universe (Y), and we can only observe Y and not observe X, and do not know its constraints, if any etc. Then we cannot demand or insist that X is constrained by the same laws as Y.

I do try to avoid stepping in christianity where possible

Must do better. That sounded funnier in your head I'm sure;)

b318isp

JimiTime wrote: »

Well thats what the OP speculates, and thats the context of the explanation, so thats the context I've maintained. You seem to be one of the rare few here that actually gets the point never mind accepts it.

Thanks. To my less complex reasoning process, it boils down to this:

1. IF a God entity created the universe, it is unlikely that we would be aware of those means used to do so
2. IF NO God entity created the universe, it is unlikely that we can adequately scientifically explain the mechanism for it to appear

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

The whole thing reminds me of the argument of God not being able to be measured scientifically (of couse his effects can be seen though;) ) as he is outside the natural world. the rebuttal from many ateists amounts to a sarcastic scoff of, 'How Convenient'. Its like, well, if God exists, you can't deny that this would be the way it would be, so whats the problem?

The problem is that God existing and you be able to accurately demonstrate that fact are two entirely different things.

When pressed to support their assertions about God or his existence theists retreat behind the excuse that well their God is untestable.

Great, so how the heck can you say anything about him with any confidence? It was revealed to you? Well can we test that? Nope. So same problem.

This is the point of the invisible pink unicorn argument. If he is invisible how can you say he is pink.

Christians define God as untestable, which is the same as defining God as not being there at all since if he is untestable then we cannot tell the difference between a universe where he exists and one where he doesn't. The two worlds look exactly the same by definition. Which makes the argument invalid.

I think if anything annoys "materialists" it is theists simply not understanding why the heck that actually matters.

Rather than getting annoyed it just makes me thank God I'm an atheist :pac:

virmilitaris

Who created god? The FSM of course.

Peregrinus

Wicknight wrote: »

Christians define God as untestable, which is the same as defining God as not being there at all since if he is untestable then we cannot tell the difference between a universe where he exists and one where he doesn't. The two worlds look exactly the same by definition. Which makes the argument invalid.

No, it doesn’t make the argument invalid. Look more closely:

Christians define God as untestable, which is the same as defining God as not being there at all since if he is untestable then we cannot tell the difference between a universe where he exists and one where he doesn't.

You are asserting here that, if we cannot tell whether X is there or not, then X is not there (or, at least, that “this is the same as” X not being there).

The implicit premise is that the only things which are real (or “the same as” real) are things which we can perceive.

You may hold to this as an article of faith, but that claim is itself untestable and unprovable. Thus the Christian argument is “invalid” only in the sense that it is not consistent with your own untestable assumptions.

And this comes back to the point that I think JimiTime was making. Those who insist that god can only be real if he is testable are insisting on god who conforms to assumptions which, if god exists, cannot be correct.

Doc_Savage

Peregrinus wrote: »

The implicit premise is that the only things which are real (or “the same as” real) are things which we can perceive.

not sure if serious?

Thus the Christian argument is “invalid” only in the sense that it is not consistent with your own untestable assumptions.

Which untestable assumptions of wicknight?

Those who insist that god can only be real if he is testable are insisting on god who conforms to assumptions which, if god exists, cannot be correct.

this is another way of stating that he's untestable... that's all... it's a rewording and little else!

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

The problem is that God existing and you be able to accurately demonstrate that fact are two entirely different things.

No, the problem on this thread, is that some people have a serious lack of understanding of a simple concept. Plenty of hot air about lack of logic and pointing and laughing may be some peoples idea of deconstructing something, but its certainly not anything worth paying attention to. Your point above has NOTHING to do with this thread which assumes Gods existence.

When pressed to support their assertions about God or his existence theists retreat behind the excuse that well their God is untestable.

Like robin, you're merely displaying your cynicism. You thinking its 'an excuse', is nothing but a frustrated argument. The fact is, if God exists, he is very likely untestable by the scientific method. Of course you can shout conspiracy, but thems the facts.

Great, so how the heck can you say anything about him with any confidence? It was revealed to you? Well can we test that? Nope. So same problem.

Again, completely useless in the context of the OP, which assumes God exists:

Just wondering something there, if God does exist who was his creator?

Peregrinus

Doc_Savage wrote: »

not sure if serious?

Perfectly serious. Why not?

Doc_Savage wrote: »

Which untestable assumptions of wicknight?

That only things which can be perceived are real.

Doc_Savage wrote: »

this is another way of stating that he's untestable... that's all... it's a rewording and little else!

Good man! Thought I’d lost you there for a minute.

The argument is essentially that an untestable god can’t be real because he is untestable. Put in those terms, it’s not a very compelling argument.

Doc_Savage

Peregrinus wrote: »

The argument is essentially that an untestable god can’t be real because he is untestable. Put in those terms, it’s not a very compelling argument.

this has been debunked numerous times as being the same as the aforementioned invisible pink unicorn.... it's pointless to argue it.

you can no more say that it exists than i can say it doesn't.

it's circular and worth no more comment.

back to the original topic... i think that the title of this thread is paradoxically stated, or that it imply's that god is only a social construct.

virmilitaris

This argument is so pathetic it really astounds me that people still use it.

Lets start at the beginning of this nonsense. Theists claim that everything needs a cause, that the Universe came into existence and therefore needs a cause. In effect that 'something cannot come from nothing'.

Straight away anyone with even a passing interest in physics could point out that yes in fact something can come from nothing. I'm not going to post about it here but please see vacuum fluctuations from quantum mechanics.

But let's assume for a second that we don't know about quantum mechanics and let's say that as far as we know something cannot come from nothing.

Fine. Straight away the most important part of that sentence was 'as far as we know' because 'as far as we know' is incredibly little. There isn't a strong enough word in the English language to denote the size of how much we don't know and there are things of which we might never know and are even incapable of knowing. We are very simple biological creatures who perceive our environment in a certain way. A simple example of this is as follows, try to visualise more than 3 dimensions, more than 5, more than 6.

We are extremely limited creatures and 'as far as we know' or 'as much as we can know' is likely to be very little indeed.

Secondly we don't know the Universe had a beginning, the Universe 'as we know it' had a beginning and the Universe 'as we know it' will have an end but that says absolutely nothing about the Universe itself apart from our limited perception of it.

The singularity at the time of the beginning of the Big Bang was a state of the Universe just as now is a state of the Universe.

People ofttimes talk about the 'heat death' of the Universe, a state of maximum entropy. Is this the 'end' of the Universe ? No. It's the end of the Universe 'as we know it'.

This nonsense about the Universe coming into being and the Universe 'dying' makes it sound like the Universe cares about us. That the correct state of the Universe is one which can support life 'as we know it'. Utter nonsense. The Universe is wonderfully apathetic to us and our form of life.

We live on a pitifully small inconsequential planet in an inconsequential solar system in a rather small galaxy in the Virgo super-cluster in the observable Universe and we have existed for a pathetically small inconsequential period of time. We are less than inconsequential to the Universe and yet theists are defining the 'life' of the Universe as the time between two states which allows our kind of life to exist on a trivially insignificant infinitesimally small part of that Universe in a trivially insignificant infinitesimally short period of time.

The Big Bang Theory does NOT explain the origin of the Universe, the Big Bang Theory explains the expansion of space and time.

The Universe could very well be infinite or finite. We don't know.

IF we assume the Universe had a beginning and IF we assume the Universe was created (That it didn't come from nothing which physics already shows can happen with particles) and IF we assume that there is an 'outside' the Universe then sure, stick your god there. It's a fantastic place to put him. Right alongside who would win in a fight, Superman or Batman.

Peregrinus

Doc_Savage wrote: »

this has been debunked numerous times as being the same as the aforementioned invisible pink unicorn.... it's pointless to argue it.

you can no more say that it exists than i can say it doesn't.

That's exactly my point, Doc. Objections to the reality of god on the grounds of his untestability are based on an act of faith which is not fundamentally different from the act of faith involved in asserting his reality.

I have no problem with rejection of god on the basis of faith. What does concern me is the claim, or assumption, that the faith on which this positions rests has an objective validity which a theist faith lacks. And wicknight did seem to me to be guilty of makign that assumption. He described JimiTim'e's position as "invalid", by which he basically meant that it was not consistent with his, Wicknight's, beliefs. I need more than that before I consider invalidity to be demonstrated.

MagicMarker

Peregrinus wrote: »

That's exactly my point, Doc. Objections to the reality of god on the grounds of his untestability are based on an act of faith which is not fundamentally different from the act of faith involved in asserting his reality.

I have no problem with rejection of god on the basis of faith. What does concern me is the claim, or assumption, that the faith on which this positions rests has an objective validity which a theist faith lacks. And wicknight did seem to me to be guilty of makign that assumption. He described JimiTim'e's position as "invalid", by which he basically meant that it was not consistent with his, Wicknight's, beliefs. I need more than that before I consider invalidity to be demonstrated.

Ignoring the tiresome argument that you're presenting, that atheism is ''faith'' based, I assume you don't believe in god then?

Memnoch

Peregrinus wrote: »

That's exactly my point, Doc. Objections to the reality of god on the grounds of his untestability are based on an act of faith which is not fundamentally different from the act of faith involved in asserting his reality.

I have no problem with rejection of god on the basis of faith. What does concern me is the claim, or assumption, that the faith on which this positions rests has an objective validity which a theist faith lacks. And wicknight did seem to me to be guilty of makign that assumption. He described JimiTim'e's position as "invalid", by which he basically meant that it was not consistent with his, Wicknight's, beliefs. I need more than that before I consider invalidity to be demonstrated.

It is not an act of faith to say that we cannot know whether or not something exists until we KNOW whether it exists.

The only tangible measure we have of existence, is to be able to test something. We can only scientifically define something within the limits of our knowledge.

As has been stated repeatedly, there is no objective difference between 'God,' and the aforementioned 'invisible pink uniform,' or any other host of a number of imaginary creatures.

We can't test the existence of the invisible pink uniform or elves or trolls, or dragons etc etc, since when should this mean that we can assume they exist?

The only difference with God is that people want/need to believe in his existence and so you get all this pointless/convoluted nonsense.

Also A-theism is a lack of theism. I.E. a lack of faith. It is paradoxical to say it is faith based.

Peregrinus

MagicMarker wrote: »

Ignoring the tiresome argument that you're presenting, that atheism is ''faith'' based . . .

I'm not saying atheism is faith based. I'm saying that Wicknight's rejection of JimiTime's position is faith-based. I have identified the proposition which I think he accepts on faith (i.e. accepts as true despite it's being untestable). And, so far, I haven't seen anybody contradict me.

(Let me be clear that I'm not having a go at Wicknight here. Firstly, I make no criticism of him - or anyone -for accepting a proposition on faith. Secondly, it's entirely possible that I have misunderstood his position. He hasn't responded to my post, but that could easily be because he hasn't seen it. I'm very willing to entertain any explanation of his position that he cares to offer which doesn't involve his accepting any proposition on faith.)

MagicMarker wrote: »

. . . I assume you don't believe in god then?

Why assume that? Because I recognise that Wicknight accepts a proposition on the basis of faith , therefore I myself accept no proposition on the basis of faith? Doesn't really follow, does it?

For the record, I do believe in God, and this is an act of faith. But my comments on Wicknight's position don't depend in any way on the fact of my belief in God, or the objective correctness or othewise of that belief. And I don't believe that my belief can be demonstrated to be objectively correct.

Peregrinus

Memnoch wrote: »

It is not an act of faith to say that we cannot know whether or not something exists until we KNOW whether it exists.

Indeed. It’s a truism, which means that it’s a statement of very limited value. (“Red things are red!”) But it’s not an act of faith.

But Wicknight didn’t say that because god is untestable we cannot know whether he exists. He said that because god is untestable and we can’t know whether he exists, he doesn’t exist. (“Christians define God as untestable, which is the same as defining God as not being there at all since if he is untestable then we cannot tell the difference between a universe where he exists and one where he doesn't.”)

That’ a very different statement. And, because it rests on an untested and untestable proposition (if we can’t know whether something is not there or not, it’s not there) it looks to me a lot like an act of faith.

Waking-Dreams

It's been said already but just because something cannot be disproved doesn’t mean the likelihood of it being true is somehow 50/50. This is the mistake theists make. “You can’t disprove my god, so the chances of him existing are just as likely as your saying he doesn’t”.

So yeah, werewolves; vampires; unicorns; invisible dragons – all of these can’t be disproved either, and the likelihood of them existing is also 50/50? Come on! I’m sure many believers don’t think any of those things are likely despite that there is just as much a case for them being true as for their idea of god. That’s why atheists can seem “so confident” in their dismissal of god because they are exercising what they consider to be the odds of likelihood which theists also extend to the above entities as well. Atheists just go one god further.

But as an aside, I read some Jonathan Haidt recently which struck a chord with me on the subject of confabulations. This probably sums up why the ‘great debate’ will go on for a long time between the religious and non-religious.

Haidt discusses moral arguments where two people feel strongly about an issue, their feelings come first, and their reasons are invented on the fly, to throw at each other.

When you refute a person’s argument, does she generally change her mind and agree with you? Of course not, because the argument you defeated was not the cause of her position; it was made up after the judgment was already made.

Hence, why many theists may not respond to arguments because these are not the real reasons for why they believe and have just confabulated their position instead, based on whatever reasons they give for faith (listed below in the quote box).

I posted the following months back which didn’t much attention from Jakkass (who I politely asked to comment on). Once again, it highlights the psychology of believers for why they think they believe and why they reckon other people believe.

Jakkass, what's your take on this:

Michael Shermer took part in a survey that he collaborated on with Frank Sulloway which explored the reasons that religious people give for belief. When people were asked why they themselves personally believed in god, the responses broke down as follows:

1. Good design/natural beauty/perfection/complexity of the world or universe (28.6%)
2. Experience of God in everyday life/a feeling that God is in us (20.6%)
3. It is comforting, relieving, consoling, and gives meaning and purpose to life (10.3%)
4. The Bible says so (9.8%)
5. Just because/faith/or the need to believe in something (8.2%)
6. Raised to believe in God (7.2%)
7. God answers prayers (6.4%)
8. Without God there would be no morality (4.0%)
9. God has a plan for the world, history, destiny, and us (3.8%)
10. To account for good and avenge evil in the world (1.0%)

But when the same people are asked why they think other people believe in god, the results are as follows:

1. It is comforting, relieving, consoling, and gives meaning and purpose to life. (26.3%)
2. Raised to believe in God. (22.4%)
3. Experience of God in everyday life/a feeling that God is in us. (16.2%)
4. Just because/faith/or the need to believe in something. (13.0%)
5. People believe because they fear death and the unknown. (9.1%)
6. Good design/natural beauty/perfection/complexity of the world or universe. (6.0%)
7. The Bible says so (5.0%)
8. Without God there would be no morality (3.5%)
9. To account for good and avenge evil in the world (1.5%)
10. God answers prayers (1.0%)

Emotions and wishful thinking (1, 4, 5, 8, 9) now rise to the top (53.4%), habit and authority (2, 7) comes second at 27.4%, while evidence (3, 6, 10) comes in last at 23.2%.

What is interesting about these results is that believers tend to think that while they themselves have rational reasons to believe in god, they think other people do so for emotional or irrational reasons.

Zombrex

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, it doesn’t make the argument invalid. Look more closely:

Christians define God as untestable, which is the same as defining God as not being there at all since if he is untestable then we cannot tell the difference between a universe where he exists and one where he doesn't.

You are asserting here that, if we cannot tell whether X is there or not, then X is not there (or, at least, that “this is the same as” X not being there).

The latter not the former. Saying we cannot tell if something exists or not is not the same as saying it doesn't. Saying "at least" does not justify equating the too.

Again consider the invisible pink unicorn thought experiment.

I suppose there is an invisible pink unicorn in the corner of the room, that cannot be seen or interacted with in anyway that would allow either of us to verify this.

You suppose there isn't an invisibile pink unicorn in the corner of the room.

Now, both versions of reality look exactly the same. This doesn't prove there isn't an invisible pink unicorn in the corner of the room, but equally it means I have no justification for supposing there is over any other phenomena I could imagine.

Peregrinus wrote: »

The implicit premise is that the only things which are real (or “the same as” real) are things which we can perceive.

No the premise is that we can only state what we perceive (and more accurately structurally examine) as real.

The invisible pink unicorn in the corner might be real. But what reason is there to suppose it is. Fact (the unicorn is real) and fiction (the unicorn is imaginary) appear the same.

Peregrinus wrote: »

And this comes back to the point that I think JimiTime was making. Those who insist that god can only be real if he is testable are insisting on god who conforms to assumptions which, if god exists, cannot be correct.

I've never seen anyone insist that god can only be real if he is testable. Remember a lot of religion is not about whether the claims of religious people can be true, but whether they have the justification to support their claims in the first place. There might be an invisible pink unicorn in the corner of the room, but simply supposing that isn't a reason to think there is.

The closest I've seen to the argument that God can't be real if he is untestable is the argument that a creator deity who wishes to be known to humans but who does not reveal himself in a manner that is testable based on scientific principles is either stupid or deceptive since he would have created that requirement in humans in the first place. And a stupid/deceptive deity is not in line with the Christian notion of God which would make such a being unlikely to exist.