Change our minds about the existence of God?

[Inevitable Droid]

How certain of a thing should one be before they cross the threshold of uncertainty and become a believer?

A believer in what?  The existence of that which, not of nature, is nature's author?  No event would make that hypothesis suddenly falsifiable, so unconsidered it must remain.

If everyone sitting at a blackjack table in Vegas was dealt 21 at the same time in every Casino,  would there be any room to doubt that was an explanation beside chance?  Of course mathematically it is probable that such an event could occur, however would this probabilty alone justify rejecting the idea there MUST be another explanation...?

Hypotheses to consider, in descending order of plausibility:

1. The casinos were staging a publicity stunt.
2. The dealers were staging some sort of labor action.
3. The mob was publicly taking over and this was their grand opening celebration.
4. The super-hero known as the Flash is real and switched all the cards faster than the eye could follow.

The accuracy of the proposition that there exists a non-empirical source of empirical causation can never be highly probable.  Propositions must either be assessed by logical empiricism or by logic alone.  The two approaches are mutually exclusive.  Logical empiricism can assess empirical causation but can't assess non-empirical anything.  Logic alone can assess non-empirical propositions but logic alone, strictly speaking, cannot assess empirical causation.  Nor is it possible to simultaneously employ logic alone and logical empiricism, as that would be contradictory.  We're left with no way to assess the probable accuracy of the God proposition.  That which cannot be assessed, must remain unconsidered.

[hackenslash]

Excellently put.

[Ihateyoumike]

Thanks droid. Very well said. You said just what I was going to, only, you said it better.

[Stevil]

How certain of a thing should one be before they cross the threshold of uncertainty and become a believer?  

It becomes a personal choice. The threat of eternal damnation changes the threshold for some no doubt.

I have some children's books which have a strategically placed hole in each page. When you look through the hole you see an orange fish, as clear as day, but when you turn the page and reveal the whole page underneath it turns out to be something quite different.

These books should be recommended reading for game hunters and people considering taking up a faith.

[elliebean]

What would you have to experience (see, feel, hear, learn) to believe in the existence of God?

Gullibility.


Maybe a frontal lobotomy would do it.

[Ihateyoumike]

What would you have to experience (see, feel, hear, learn) to believe in the existence of God?

Gullibility.


Maybe a frontal lobotomy would do it.

Extreme drug or alcohol addiction, or prison also seems to help most of the time. Seems to be a great breeding ground for the religious.

[ElizabethPeart]

If you're talking about a God like that of the Bible, then nothing could make me believe again. Short of brain damage.

[Chandler M Bing]

Actually, there is one thing that would convince me of the existence of the divine:

Nothing!

No, I really mean that. Show me nothing, and I'll be convinced. All I need to see is absolutely nothing, in a stable and unchanging state, and I will believe that your god exists. Of course, I'll still be an atheist, but there you go. I have no god, regardless of the actual existence of deities. Whatever god exists, it isn't mine, and I have no want or need of it.

Still, I'd be interested in seeing nothing, because that would really be something.

If god exists, it is your god. You have no say in the matter. If there's a god and it created you, it's not down to you to negate that. You don't have to like it but you can't change that fact (again, assuming god exists). You seem to be saying "I don't believe god exists, but if I did, I would resent that god", which begs the question, how do you define this god, which, if it existed, you would resent? In other words, who is your (as yet not conclusively known) nonexistent god?

[elliebean]

If you're talking about a God like that of the Bible, then nothing could make me believe again. Short of brain damage.

I already have that; apparently a lot more of it would be required. And it would have to be of a sort that would ultimately make me agree to anything, no matter how preposterous. I would have to become as impressionable and uncritical of any suggestion as, say, someone of about two years of age or younger - or whatever age I was when my religious indoctrination was started.

[hackenslash]

If god exists, it is your god. You have no say in the matter. If there's a god and it created you, it's not down to you to negate that. You don't have to like it but you can't change that fact (again, assuming god exists). You seem to be saying "I don't believe god exists, but if I did, I would resent that god", which begs the question, how do you define this god, which, if it existed, you would resent? In other words, who is your (as yet not conclusively known) nonexistent god?

Who the fuck said anything about resentment? It isn't my god. You can keep it. I have no use for it whatsoever. What do you do with one anyway? Wheel it out as a conversation starter at parties? I have no god.

Edit: As for being created, I wasn't. I was born. No mysteries there.

[Chandler M Bing]

If god exists, it is your god. You have no say in the matter. If there's a god and it created you, it's not down to you to negate that. You don't have to like it but you can't change that fact (again, assuming god exists). You seem to be saying "I don't believe god exists, but if I did, I would resent that god", which begs the question, how do you define this god, which, if it existed, you would resent? In other words, who is your (as yet not conclusively known) nonexistent god?

Who the fuck said anything about resentment? It isn't my god. You can keep it. I have no use for it whatsoever. What do you do with one anyway? Wheel it out as a conversation starter at parties? I have no god.

You said that even if there was a god, you'd still be an atheist, you would be without a god. Now you're saying that this is not down to resentment of said god. Ok then. What is it down to? If god exists and let's say you became aware of this / believed it, on what grounds would you still claim to be able to say that you're without god? If this god is your creator, and you believe that, you're in no position to say that you are without that god, since it is the very source of your existence. Simples.

[hackenslash]

I never said anything about resentment, I said I have no want or need of such an entity. It isn't mine, and I don't want it. And as I have said, I wasn't created, so this entity, if it exists, is not my creator, or my anything else, for that matter. Do try to keep up. It would also be useful if you learned to read simple English, as you seem to be seeing words that aren't there.

[Whirling Moat]

Peace.....

A believer in what? The existence of that which, not of nature, is nature's author? No event would make that hypothesis suddenly falsifiable, so unconsidered it must remain.

Au contraire, it is not only well considered, it is the crux of the preeminent cosmological theory of our time.  It should be understood that Big Bang models predict a pre-existant agent which gave rise to nature.  The first natural activity from this perspective was the appearance and violent expansion of the singularity.  Without such an agent the theory must assert that without cause or opportunity something came from nothing at all.  Even if this was the prevailing idea, it would still by necessity demand that the first activity or behaviour was an unnatural sort.  

Logical necessity demands that "The existence of that which, not of nature, is nature's author?" is a true statement.

1. The casinos were staging a publicity stunt.

Agreed..This would be the most plausible explanation

2. The dealers were staging some sort of labor action.

Dangerous..but alright...

3. The mob was publicly taking over and this was their grand opening celebration.

Ahhh c'mon we all know the Mob is an urban legend...They don't really exist...

4. The super-hero known as the Flash is real and switched all the cards faster than the eye could follow.

 

Well lets say this happened after the death of Barry Allen

And uh...What happened to #5?   You know where you say that despite the staggering improbability of such an occurance it could happen by chance alone?  

But thats lunacy isnt it?  We would rather believe first that  the Flash did it, or maybe Quicksilver, or the vampires from Cirque Du Freak while they were flitting...But we would all absolutely reject randomness as the explanation. It is absurd.

The accuracy of the proposition that there exists a non-empirical source of empirical causation can never be highly probable. Propositions must either be assessed by logical empiricism or by logic alone. The two approaches are mutually exclusive. Logical empiricism can assess empirical causation but can't assess non-empirical anything. Logic alone can assess non-empirical propositions but logic alone, strictly speaking, cannot assess empirical causation. Nor is it possible to simultaneously employ logic alone and logical empiricism, as that would be contradictory. We're left with no way to assess the probable accuracy of the God proposition. That which cannot be assessed, must remain unconsidered

Tell that to the universe.  Despite the seeming contradicton and vulgarity of the notion, the universe may not behave in a manner which is consistent with a any limited set of logical imperatives.

Our inability to assess the conditions which caused the springing forth of the Universe does nothing to change the fact that it is here.  If natural process came with the Universe then there is only one possible way to look at this...If Gravity,electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces didn't do it...and there was no time or material...What else do you have to work with?


I am not leaping all the way into saying it must be God...Lets start with saying it could not be Nature-meaning physical processes of the classical sort..




Whirling Moat

[Chandler M Bing]

I never said anything about resentment, I said I have no want or need of such an entity. It isn't mine, and I don't want it. And as I have said, I wasn't created, so this entity, if it exists, is not my creator, or my anything else, for that matter. Do try to keep up. It would also be useful if you learned to read simple English, as you seem to be seeing words that aren't there.

So if god existed, and if it wasn't the creator of anything, what would it be, if it existed? Define what you think god would be, if it did exist.

By the way english isn't my first language, but I'm fascinated by languages. Do you know any, other than english?

[hackenslash]

A ridiculous request, since I don't believe that any of the many tens of thousands of deity concept exist.