You know God exists. Now thats either true or its not. Your opinion matters.

Zubeneschamali · 27-11-2019 1:53pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I know I have said this so often it is boring even to me, let alone everyone else. But I am constantly fascinated by people who claim they, or anyone elee, can "decide" what to believe.

While I agree that deciding what to believe is impossible, I have myself come to disbelieve things I used to believe because I changed how I think, and I have read of other people doing the same.

I used to believe things that I now disbelieve: God, Santy Claus, that glass is a really slow liquid.

When I figured out that people were kidding me about Santy, I made a conscious decision not to just take people's word for stuff from then on, and came to disbelieve in other things with no other support also.

Now you might phrase this as being compelled to disbelieve a whole class of things, but that is not how it felt.

It felt like the process went: I read that glass is a really slow liquid and old cathedral windows are thicker at the bottom because of slow flow over time. Fair enough, interesting fact.

Wait, that whole Santy thing was a joke, I should not just believe stuff without checking anymore. Years later when I saw the glass factoid again - wait a minute, let's check that out... nope, not true, I believe it is false.

So I came to disbelieve glass is a liquid and god exists because I decided to change how I think.

nozzferrahhtoo · 27-11-2019 2:10pm

I guess my brain does not work like other people. I read many things too that just never struck my brain as true but always as "I must check the evidence for that later". I never changed how I think, I just always worked that way. Probably because I had a dad and big brother who liked to joke with me from a young age telling me things that were tricks or jokes or lies. So I was conditioned early.

I do not think I read about glass being a slow liquid for example, but things like Vitamin C helps cure colds for example, or that you're meant to drink 2 litres of water a day, dogs see in black and white, and ducks quacks don't echo. I read things like that and my brain has always... for as long as I remember.... simply filed them under "Claims to be later evaluated". (none of the above claims turned out to be remotely true by the way).

So it just fascinates me, I guess like anything people are able to do easily that I can not do at all. There is a button in some peoples brains they can flick at will, and I simply can't. And I find that deeply intriguing, like people with some forms of autism trying to imagine how "normal" people can pick up subtle social cues. They can puzzle it out and be fascinated for it forever, but they will probably never be able to do it.

sydthebeat · 27-11-2019 2:15pm

truth

nozzferrahhtoo · 27-11-2019 2:28pm

Four!

KWAG2019 · 27-11-2019 2:35pm

For some reason that video reminds me of Bishop Brennan.

smacl · 27-11-2019 2:37pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Poor man - what did he do to deserve that?
:P

Archaeology nerd with a passion for all things Celtic. He went back to college in his 50s purely for the love of it and I'm guessing is one of those rare Gerry of Wales true fanbois

Bannasidhe · 27-11-2019 2:40pm

smacl wrote: »

Archaeology nerd with a passion for all things Celtic. He went back to college in his 50s purely for the love of it and I'm guessing is one of those rare Gerry of Wales true fanbois

If he ever encounters Barra O Donabhain I would seriously advise him to not refer to the Irish as 'Celtic'. It's a red rag to a bull scenario.

Hotblack Desiato · 27-11-2019 2:45pm

LaFuton wrote: »

but it seems (imho} seems everyone is allowed to say there's no God, "imaginary" "make believe" even "nonsense" some of the words used

calling the Holy Bible "folklore"

nobody is pulled on asserting these with their certainty

Are you saying people should not be allowed say these things?

There's already a 'safe space' on boards where any critical comment on christianity is not allowed. But this isn't it.

Everyone here is just expressing their opinion and is allowed to express their opinion.

i think people should be more respectful of the faithful, (not the nutbag zealots obvz) but good folk like our old wans and grandparents

You're conflating respect for a person with respect for the beliefs of a person.

especially in Ireland as Celtic Christianity was one of the finest and liberal iterations of faith, look it up folks, v interesting.

That was long before any of our lifetimes, and led into a basically fascist repressive regime in this country (and many others) we still haven't managed to disentangle ourselves from.

Fourier · 27-11-2019 2:47pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I do not think I read about glass being a slow liquid for example, but things like Vitamin C helps cure colds for example, or that you're meant to drink 2 litres of water a day, dogs see in black and white, and ducks quacks don't echo. I read things like that and my brain has always... for as long as I remember.... simply filed them under "Claims to be later evaluated". (none of the above claims turned out to be remotely true by the way).

So it just fascinates me, I guess like anything people are able to do easily that I can not do at all. There is a button in some peoples brains they can flick at will, and I simply can't. And I find that deeply intriguing, like people with some forms of autism trying to imagine how "normal" people can pick up subtle social cues. They can puzzle it out and be fascinated for it forever, but they will probably never be able to do it.

Well I guess it might depend on the source. I mean I believe linguists that many languages in Europe and Asia descend from a common ancestor Proto-Indo-European, but I'm not really capable of evaluating that myself without learning reconstructive linguistics. I'd often take consensus among experts as evidence without evaluating the primary evidence myself.

[Deleted User] · 27-11-2019 2:59pm

"belief" is a very interesting point of discussion.

"faith" another one.

slightly different things, really.

certainty in the unknowable, as set out by the OP throughout this thread, strikes me as one of the least *interesting* platforms from which to start discussion.

ive an relative who is a professor of theology or somesuch, amongst other things. obviously a great person to sit and talk through just this type of thing with.

but as soon as she starts to tell me about what she ~knows~ about these things, the discussion loses it's value in many ways. ill defer to her all day on the writings of aquinas and etc etc etc, but even though i know her easily my better in intellectual matters and in particular as pertains to these subjects (the esoteric study of the history of man's engagement with spirituality/god, etc) it always strikes me that she is at the base level totally unwilling to differentiate between the knowledge of what has been written/believed versus the knowledge of what has been proven.

its a fundamental gap, and even though it's the obvious bridge across which theists/atheists will communicate forever, the interface in the middle of that bridge is of a nature where even the language used cannot cross correctly.

what our OP "knows" is, of course, often demonstrably unknowable.

knowing this, we are invited to consider a situation where what he "knows" to be true is in fact the base scenario- so what then?

he then declares himself the winner.

it is not a very satisfactory conversation for anyone involved, as far as i can see, but it doesnt hurt anyone i suppose.

nozzferrahhtoo · 27-11-2019 3:00pm

Yes I too will often... in deference to the consensus of experts.... operate functionally as if I believe a certain set of claims too. THAT is a decision I can make without evaluating the evidence. But it is not the same... for me at least.... as choosing to actually believe their claim. Which I am incapable of doing. I couldn't even if I wanted to.

Man Made Climate Change is a great example of this. A very hot topic at the moment but one I admit I am highly ignorant on and have never found the time to sit down and actually look at the evidence myself. So I can not say I actively believe the claims about Man Made Climate Change. I don't simply because I can't. Yet.

However in deference to the near universal consensus on the topic from actual qualified people in that realm... I functionally at this time operate as if I do believe their claims. Until such time as I can evaluate the data myself. Which, given my to do list, is not soon

smacl · 27-11-2019 3:01pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

As I was saying in the OP, there is evidence but the evidence (say: there is and we act as if there is an objective morality) of God but it can be read contra-God in order to maintain our bent: to be god.

Now you will say that the overwhelming case is that the evidence be read other than God. But if with prior bent, the evidence weighing isn't neutral and balanced.

If.

The obvious conclusion is obvious but if a bent obvious. Suffice to say, obvious isn't an argument. And so stalemate, when it comes to argument occurs.

You might say this is okay. That you can't eacape a stalemate for the FSM either. Which is fine. Stalemate it is and you are left with a position that can't quite attach itself firmly to anything. What you rely on is your feeling that you are right. Your belief

Which is fine. The apparatus of salvation/damnation understands this and takes it into account in its workings. It knows you are bent and balances accordingly that which you cannot balance.

So that there be no excuse, if you plump for that end, in the end.

Mod warning: This is a discussion forum. The above passage is so badly phrased it appears as a deliberate attempt to obfuscate and hence stifle discussion. Please put forward your argument in plain English such that it is clearly communicated to other readers. You have also already been instructed by a mod to drop the 'stalemate' nonsense so please do so. Thanks for your attention.

nozzferrahhtoo · 27-11-2019 3:05pm

Deleted User wrote: »

"belief" is a very interesting point of discussion.

"faith" another one.

Over my years on this and other forums I have seen a lot of people give their own definition of "faith". "Belief without evidence" or "Belief in spite of the evidence" being the two I most often see.

I had my own one though. I defined it as "The willingness to selectively accept evidence for an arbitrary conclusion that only works as evidence when you assume the conclusion".

And it is amazing how often the words and behaviours of theists conform to that definition. For example only in the last few posts the OP wrote "You don't get the evidence that sustains belief until you answer is given (in the affirmative). Once that occurs there is no problem: you see and it all makes sense."

That is an example of exactly what I mean. Once accepting the premise, evidence for that premise that only works once you accept the premise is suddenly all around you.

Problem is it works for just about everything. The 23ists, of which a film starring Jim Carey was once made, are a good example for this. Once you accept that the number 23 controls all and everything, you suddenly start finding evidence validating that EVERYWHERE. Problem is it likely works for any number too. And a mathematician friend of mine, though he never explained to me why, says this is especially true of prime numbers.

Evidence that leads to a conclusion is one thing. Evidence for a conclusion that only works as evidence for the conclusion IF you assume the conclusion.... that is "faith" in my head.

joe40 · 27-11-2019 3:07pm

Fourier wrote: »

Well I guess it might depend on the source. I mean I believe linguists that many languages in Europe and Asia descend from a common ancestor Proto-Indo-European, but I'm not really capable of evaluating that myself without learning reconstructive linguistics. I'd often take consensus among experts as evidence without evaluating the primary evidence myself.

Yeah, we have to do that all the time. Climate change is a prime example, I have a scientific background, but I do not have the time nor expertise to learn all the theories and primary research myself, I have to trust a consensus of opinion.
Health care is another example, I believe vaccines are safe and necessary, because I trust the people saying so and because the consensus of opinion, that I trust, says so. Not because I have evaluated the 1000s of research papers on this topic.

That's not the same as simply "belief" but it does involve an element of trust.

nozzferrahhtoo · 27-11-2019 3:11pm

Hah funny that we both gave Climate Change as an example.

Vaccines at least is something I have read more on than can be justified for someone who is not actively studying it in University. I have read books and papers galore on the subject.

Climate change though, my sum knowledge on the subject is probably what I learned off Brian Cox when he appeared on an Australian Afternoon Chat Show

Fourier · 27-11-2019 3:15pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yes I too will often... in deference to the consensus of experts.... operate functionally as if I believe a certain set of claims too. THAT is a decision I can make without evaluating the evidence. But it is not the same... for me at least.... as choosing to actually believe their claim. Which I am incapable of doing. I couldn't even if I wanted to.

I do just believe their claims. It's not surprising that people would be like this as it occurs as a matter of Bayesian reasoning. If you have a large prior belief that other agents well versed in the manner will not on average be very biased, then it is often provably rational to take their testimony as significant evidence. Even AIs reason like this. I'm sure one could work backwards from not believing them by default to work out the effective prior you must have to not simply believe.

Similarly I'd believe the overall chronology of Egypt and several other facts without investigating them myself. Perhaps you mean something different by "believe" though.

Fourier · 27-11-2019 3:22pm

joe40 wrote: »

That's not the same as simply "belief" but it does involve an element of trust.

I say I believe them in the sense that I accept what they are saying is true without evaluating the evidence myself. So I accept what they say without evidence (believe them) because I trust them.

nozzferrahhtoo · 27-11-2019 3:24pm

No I don't think I have a different meaning of "believe" than you are operating under. As I said I just have the feeling my brain works different to the people I communicate with or meet in my life. For me believing a claim and operating in deference to a claim, are simply different things. I simply have to see the evidence myself before I can "believe" anything. YMMV.

smacl · 27-11-2019 3:26pm

Fourier wrote: »

Even AIs reason like this.

What many people fail to realise is that as AIs learn, they also inherit prejudices in the training data. Quite an entertaining article here on why modern AIs tend to be racist; https://towardsdatascience.com/https-medium-com-mauriziosantamicone-is-artificial-intelligence-racist-66ea8f67c7de

Fourier · 27-11-2019 3:33pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No I don't think I have a different meaning of "believe" than you are operating under. As I said I just have the feeling my brain works different to the people I communicate with or meet in my life. For me believing a claim and operating in deference to a claim, are simply different things. I simply have to see the evidence myself before I can "believe" anything. YMMV.

smacl wrote: »

What many people fail to realise is that as AIs learn, they also inherit prejudices in the training data. Quite an entertaining article here on why modern AIs tend to be racist; https://towardsdatascience.com/https-medium-com-mauriziosantamicone-is-artificial-intelligence-racist-66ea8f67c7de

This sort of stuff was long ago investigated by probabalists such as Bruno de Finetti. Where we now know there is no such thing as a completely unbiased agent in principle, neither an AI or a human. Not just that being utterly unbiased is hard, it's a mathematical impossibility.

As you point out smacl the data sets can themselves be biased, but also even for a good dataset the dataset simply updates one's prior and there is no such thing as an objectively correct prior set of beliefs to hold and all priors are somewhat opinionated in a unjustified way. The prior controls one's reasoning and how you process evidence, so this effects how one reaches conclusions.

de Finetti himself did investigate how agents viewing the same dataset often come to the same conclusions in the long run.

nozzferrahhtoo's method could probably be modelled as a different prior for expert opinions.

smacl · 27-11-2019 3:41pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No I don't think I have a different meaning of "believe" than you are operating under. As I said I just have the feeling my brain works different to the people I communicate with or meet in my life. For me believing a claim and operating in deference to a claim, are simply different things. I simply have to see the evidence myself before I can "believe" anything. YMMV.

I'd probably land somewhere between yourself and Fourier here, in that I tend to form trust relationships with certain sources over time. Much like people having faith in Fermat's last theorem prior to receiving actual proof, that faith is based around Fermat being a trustworthy source have provided proofs for his previous theorems. I'm of the opinion that by getting children young enough, churches working in concert with parents can establish themselves as trustworthy and hence continue to propagate their belief systems. As a mechanism it is starting to fail.

Fourier · 27-11-2019 3:46pm

smacl wrote: »

I'd probably land somewhere between yourself and Fourier here, in that I tend to form trust relationships with certain sources over time.

Just to understand the difference here, I'm saying for example that I believe academic consensus by default, you're saying you would need to see that consensus hold for a certain period of time?

[Deleted User] · 27-11-2019 4:02pm

smacl wrote: »

What many people fail to realise is that as AIs learn, they also inherit prejudices in the training data. Quite an entertaining article here on why modern AIs tend to be racist; https://towardsdatascience.com/https-medium-com-mauriziosantamicone-is-artificial-intelligence-racist-66ea8f67c7de

Case of put crap in get crap out. Have personally seen this in action where an I.T. multinational made it compulsory for their support personal to enter the documentation that resulted in the solution for their tickets so that customers would be presented with a list of documents based on their problem description.
The support personal seen this as a way to reduce head count and of course put in random documents as the solution, making the system useless.

Back to the basis of the thread if God exists, surely they would have better representatives handling their pr and not be driving away potential believers.

Bannasidhe · 27-11-2019 4:04pm

The rules of Historical Interrogation are so ingrained in me by now I automatically employ them.

In shorthand it's Who/What/When/Where/Why:

i) Who said it.
ii) What exactly did they say?
iii) When did they say it?
iv) Where did they say it?
v) Why did they say it?

I get told to f off a lot when people are trying to tell me some gossip

joe40 · 27-11-2019 4:26pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The rules of Historical Interrogation are so ingrained in me by now I automatically employ them.

In shorthand it's Who/What/When/Where/Why:

i) Who said it.
ii) What exactly did they say?
iii) When did they say it?
iv) Where did they say it?
v) Why did they say it?

I get told to f off a lot when people are trying to tell me some gossip

That's a very good approach, and the sort of thing I would aspire to, but not always successfully.

We are bombarded with information all the time it is difficult to stand back and be impartial. We all have biases that affect opinions, we can guard against them but I think the human condition is such that they can't be fully overcome. I'm talking about the quick judgements we make all the time.

smacl · 27-11-2019 5:17pm

Fourier wrote: »

Just to understand the difference here, I'm saying for example that I believe academic consensus by default, you're saying you would need to see that consensus hold for a certain period of time?

Depends on the subject matter. If it is outside my own area of expertise and is of casual interest, I trust academic consensus. If it is likely to be of more consequence to me, or in one of those small areas where I actually have some expertise, I'll tend to review the source material and make my own judgement. I'm by and large working with technical information that is not contentious, but reading some of the headlines you see on articles referenced in forums such as this and the comparing them to the original source, you regularly come across misrepresentation of what constitutes current academic consensus on a topic. There are a lot of agendas lurking out that buy into academia as a tool to promote a point of view. Personally I find a bit of health scepticism does no harm.

Fourier · 27-11-2019 5:26pm

smacl wrote: »

Depends on the subject matter. If it is outside my own area of expertise and is of casual interest, I trust academic consensus. If it is likely to be of more consequence to me, or in one of those small areas where I actually have some expertise, I'll tend to review the source material and make my own judgement. I'm by and large working with technical information that is not contentious, but reading some of the headlines you see on articles referenced in forums such as this and the comparing them to the original source, you regularly come across misrepresentation of what constitutes current academic consensus on a topic. There are a lot of agendas lurking out that buy into academia as a tool to promote a point of view. Personally I find a bit of health scepticism does no harm.

Ah sorry, I wasn't clear then. This is basically what I'd be like. When I say it's the "consensus in the field" I mean as evidenced by a textbook in that field, not by the media.

So for example I'll believe English evolved in such a way because an academic text on linguistics says so, not because a website or similar says it's "what scientists say". I would believe it without the textbook providing detailed sound change reconstruction and textual evidence.

So I should say I believe textbooks in a subject published by well trusted academic institutes.

nozzferrahhtoo would you take a textbook's word or would you need the original papers and to read them carefully?

Much like people having faith in Fermat's last theorem prior to receiving actual proof, that faith is based around Fermat being a trustworthy source have provided proofs for his previous theorems

Just to say Fermat probably didn't have a proof for his theorem. The theorem is not provable with mathematics that existed in his day. His son published a margin note without his permission. Most likely he thought he had a proof.

antiskeptic · 27-11-2019 5:36pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I know I have said this so often it is boring even to me, let alone everyone else. But I am constantly fascinated by people who claim they, or anyone elee, can "decide" what to believe.

Cognitive dissonance?

For me belief, or lack of it, is not a decision but a compulsion as impossible to resist as my heart beating is. Either evidence is presented and I am compelled to believe the claim, or evidence is not presented and I am entirely unable to believe the claim.

That works for simple things. But when it comes to weighing evidence, things get a bit more complicated. A person, for example, can refuse to believe something.

The refusal involves creating a pathway through the evidence which, though not the most accurate path, serves the primary purpose - which is not to face into the truth, for whatever reason.

You hear it with pension planning. People burying their heads and constructing 'it'll be okay when I get there' stories to salve the worry.

Or smokers looking at Uncle Jimmy who smoked 100 a day and lived to 98.

Or smacl with his ever onward and upward view of humanity.

Surely if that's a human condtion, you can't suppose yourself immune.

I never decided to not believe in a god. I am simply not capable of it given I have been offered not just insufficient, not just little, but ABSOLUTELY ZERO argument, evidence, data or reaosning to substantiate the claim that there is one. I can not just flick a switch and "decide" to believe it all the same.

Luckily, you aren't being asked to do any such thing.

You might be conflating

- being IN a state of belief (a state sustained by exposure to clear, undeniable evidence) and

- getting into the room containing the above evidence. Getting into the room occurs through belief, but it is NOT the same belief as the belief that occurs on account of being in the evidence room.

It is safe to say that the first time you would see the evidence that God indeed exists is AFTER you are saved. In other words: first you are saved THEN you are presented with clear evidence that God exists. Your eyes are opened and you see it clearly. Its quite simple: he turns up personally

Only after you are saved though.

Getting to the point of being saved (i.e. getting into the room where he is) is an entirely different matter. What you need to believe (or better said, be in a state of belief about) to 'get saved' isn't that God is real. How could you believe that when you haven't got 'clear as the nose in your face' evidence? That's an impossible ask.

So:

AFTER you are saved, God shows up and you naturally are convinced he exists. You have the evidence of him and belief follows - just as you say it should.

BEFORE you are saved you need to believe. But it is not Gods existence or Jesus dying for your sins or anything like that that you need to believe. Rather, you have to believe* (be in a state of belief) you have an insurmountable problem. Because if you are led by God into accepting the evidence that sustains that particular belief then then you will have reached the door leading into salvation, into the room where God is and thus, the evidence to believe he exists.

You can hold this belief whilst still not believing that God exists, for you are not through the door yet.

You will go through the door alright - no worry there. You will go through because you believe what God says (even if you don't know its him who has is the one speaking to you). You believe what he says about your having an insurmountable problem.

Abraham had an insurmountable problem and he believed God .. and was saved. You don't have to know its God doing the talking. You only have to believe what he is saying.

-

The evidence for your having an insurmountable problem is all around. But that evidence can and will be denied by us all. Because that is our nature. We don't want to acknowledge we have a problem. For to acknowledge we have a problem we cannot resolve (but which we know we need solved) dethrones us.

And so it can be a long process turning our heads and sidestepping our tendency to turn away. It might never succeed -for the person won't be forced into turning their head

As I have said, the process of salvation (and damnation) aims to correct for our tendency to be bent against God and to be deniers of some truths about us. It compensates for our being skewed against God.

Turns out God's way of salvation isn't as confounding to what you find valuable. A small bit of good news!

NB: believe is a stative verb. People don't decide to believe (action involved). To believe is to be in a state of belief. It is something or someone else that puts us in that state. E.g. exposure to evidence.

smacl · 27-11-2019 5:58pm

Fourier wrote: »

Just to say Fermat probably didn't have a proof for his theorem. The theorem is not provable with mathematics that existed in his day. His son published a margin note without his permission. Most likely he thought he had a proof.

That probably coincides with my take on faith so. It being something I place in people that I trust, which while rarely misplaced doesn't mean they don't sometimes get it wrong.

[Deleted User] · 27-11-2019 7:09pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

NB: believe is a stative verb. People don't decide to believe (action involved). To believe is to be in a state of belief. It is something or someone else that puts us in that state. E.g. exposure to evidence.

Exactly. So exposure to absolute nonsense during your formative years at home, in school and in the society in which one is raised leads one to a state of belief in god.

Belief in a god, any god, essentially results from the systematic indoctrination of the individual by one or more who have repeated what was at one time a straightforward lie. A inability to see that these now compounded, interwoven lies cannot equate to truth is The crux of the matter.

Some are soothed by their own promise of salvation if only they’re open to the possibility a lie being a truth. It puzzles me how apparently intelligent people can decide such entirely self serving beliefs can have any defence, even when they attempt to spread the love by involving me as a would-be beneficiary of their lies.

You know God exists. Now thats either true or its not. Your opinion matters.

Comments