Change our minds about the existence of God?

[Whirling Moat]

Peace....

Of course. That's life, that's death. No fairy tales, no fictions. Being dead will essentially be the same as it was before I was born, or conceived. Why is that so scary, or difficult to handle?

I think it is a rather selfish concept.  


What of an atheist mother who has lost her child to a depraved pedophile and while frantically searching for answers and the remains of her young and innocent child, discovers that she is dying herself?

Is it irrational to hope...Hope...for something more...answers,  justice, or even being reunited with the loved one?  Can this dying atheist believe that there is justice inherent in nature when she has lost her child and will never know where the remains are, what circumstances lead to the childs death, or maybe if the child is still alive and continues to suffer? Or whether the person responsible will ever be caught, exposed, and brought to justice? Should this person go into the permanence of death thinking "Oh well, in a second I won't feel a thing and I won't have to worry about that anymore"?

More importantly how do you console the living in circumstances such as this?  What of the atheist husband who has to suffer knowing that while he may find answers someday his beloved wife suffered in her remaining days and ultimately died in anguish and utter despair? And how will this be equalized? Should he not seek to hunt this man down, and torture him mercilessly since imprisoning him and allowing him to enjoy even the most subtle benefits of living could not be just, and killing him quickly will do nothing but place him comfortably where he was before he was born?  

It seems that only by protracted punishment would the score be settled? Perhaps torturing him will not be enough since he may have caused the death of other children and he has definitely caused great suffering to atleast two the child and the mother...Perhaps other pedophiles should share in the fate of this man?

For the sake of clarifying where this slippery slope is leading to, if we discard the idea of an afterlife we by default explain to everyoine that all justice must happen in the present life or else the opportunity will be lost.  Social order breaks down thereafter.  

Perhaps heaven and hell and the day of reckoning are lies, but if they are they are necessary lies.

 Personally I think there is more to the afterlife than nothingness... and there are too many people of sound character and too many trained professionals who can attest to Near Death experiences where people were able to return and give details of things they could not have known while they were unconscious.  But that is an entirely different discussion.  



Whirling Moat

[Davin]

What it would take is empirical evidence, just like everything else I accept as true.

[Whirling Moat]

Peace....

What it would take is empirical evidence, just like everything else I accept as true.

10 +x-20   What is the value of x?  Would you not accept that x=10 even if there were nothing more than reason to bring you to this conclusion?

Or what of things like " there are two people in the room" One person is named John, the other is named Lucius..Lucius leaves the room, which leaves one person in the room, without looking, what is the name of the person inside?

Most people rationalize beliefs and accept empirically substantiated beliefs...God has to be proven using reasoning since the universe was not designed to leave room for a Miccro Manager in the heavens. It pretty much runs itself.  It is humanity which needs the management..since if left unattended we could actually destroy this world and who knows in enough time we may even figure out how to destroy an entire galaxy or more...Humans are very unique in this regard which is why we get the extra attention.  


Whirling Moat

[Whirling Moat]

Peace....


I would like to continue this discussion, however, without the flame baiting and unnecessary insults.  I am willing to have a go at it..

I will say this very clearly. It is not a new revelation that Cosmologists and physicists suggest that all known theories break down at the singularity and that peeking behind the quantum occurance of the first singularity is not possible due not some limit of information, but rather a limit to science itself, since it is postulated that during this first instances science itself was being created.  So the tools of measurement can only lead us back so far.

If this is well understood we can go further...


Whirling Moat

[Inevitable Droid]

Is it irrational to hope...Hope...for something more [than annihilation at death - Droid]...answers,  justice, or even being reunited with the loved one?

No.  So long as it remains hope and makes no pretentions at knowledge or insight and presents no one and nothing as an authority on the subject.

if we discard the idea of an afterlife we by default explain to everyone that all justice must happen in the present life or else the opportunity will be lost.

You say that like it's a bad thing.  I am quite proud of the fact that my atheism, or, more precisely, my epistemology, forces me to seek justice on Earth or else let go of my anger; forces me to fear prison, because if I have only one life, spending the rest of it in prison would be tragic; forces me to fear getting myself killed, as I have more I'd like to do before I die.  My epistemology leads to the great virtues of caution, and stoicism*, and, when the first two cannot constrain it, heroism**.  

* Stoicism is accepting what I cannot, or choose not to, change or counterbalance.  It is peace in reality and peace in choice.

** Heroism is choosing to do my best to change or counterbalance what I cannot accept.  It is only folly if what I cannot accept is a law of nature, or if caution is overridden for the sake of something less valuable to me than what I'm risking, or if my methods are incompetent.

Social order breaks down thereafter.

Why?

Perhaps heaven and hell and the day of reckoning are lies, but if they are they are necessary lies.

Then they are necessary evils, for self-deceit is a great evil.  But I dispute the necessity.  All that's needed for social stability is legislation and enforcement.  All that's needed for happiness is achievable goals.

[Davin]

Peace....

What it would take is empirical evidence, just like everything else I accept as true.

10 +x-20   What is the value of x?  Would you not accept that x=10 even if there were nothing more than reason to bring you to this conclusion?

No.

Or what of things like " there are two people in the room" One person is named John, the other is named Lucius..Lucius leaves the room, which leaves one person in the room, without looking, what is the name of the person inside?

The people can be empirically observed to exist, the room as well. As well as testing for whether a person can escape said room without being noticed.

Most people rationalize beliefs and accept empirically substantiated beliefs...God has to be proven using reasoning since the universe was not designed to leave room for a Miccro Manager in the heavens. It pretty much runs itself.  It is humanity which needs the management..since if left unattended we could actually destroy this world and who knows in enough time we may even figure out how to destroy an entire galaxy or more...Humans are very unique in this regard which is why we get the extra attention.

There is no reason to accept anything as true without empirical evidence. There are lots of reasons to not accept things without empirical evidence.

[Inevitable Droid]

10 +x-20   What is the value of x?  Would you not accept that x=10 even if there were nothing more than reason to bring you to this conclusion?

No.

Are you saying you don't accept x = 10 in this context or are you saying there's something more than reason that causes you to accept x = 10?

My own epistemology has three parts, logical empiricism, math, and formal logic.  This allows me to accept x = 10 in this context without having to postulate some empirical reason why I should.  My perspective can be described as distinguishing between synthetic propositions and analytic ones.   Synthetic propositions are derived via logical empiricism; analytic ones, via math or formal logic.

None of the above supports Islam in any way, as neither logical empiricism, nor math, nor formal logic will lead us to the Quran, nor anywhere else with respect to theism except the rejection thereof.

God has to be proven using reasoning since the universe was not designed to leave room for a Micro Manager in the heavens.

Here I'm addressing Whirling Moat:

Reasoning alone will never get us to God, if, by God, you mean Allah, or anything like him.  If you mean Allah, by the way, I for one would welcome you naming him, since then I would be clearer on what you were talking about.

[Inevitable Droid]

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.

I saw all the back and forth on this discussion point.  Let me just say that today, December 2010, among physicists currently at work, the answer to the question as to what was going on before the Big Bang will be an immediate unanimous shrug.  

But let's pretend otherwise.  Let's pretend we knew for sure that before the Big Bang there was a period of nothingness, and then suddenly, bang.  Would this suggest the existence of God?  No.  Because God would still be, as postulated, a non-empirical source of empirical causation, and that proposition is impossible to assess.  Empirical causation can only be assessed by logical empiricism, which cannot assess non-empirical propositions; meanwhile, non-empirical propositions can only be assessed by logic alone, which cannot assess empirical causation; and the two modalities cannot be brought together to assess a single proposition, because that would negate logic alone as a modality.

If we decide to define God as the empirical source of empirical causation, then at most what we're saying is that God is whatever existed before the Big Bang, and the question of what that was is already being investigated, to the extent it can be, by the only people qualified to investigate it, namely, physicists and astronomers.  Alternatively, we might be saying that God is the laws of nature - not their author, but literally them and nothing more.

If we decide to define God as the non-empirical source of non-empirical causation, then we're saying God is the axioms of mathematics and the rules of logic.

We could say God is threefold; I.e., the laws of nature, the axioms of mathematics, and the rules of logic; which would make God the universe's impersonal governing order.  Let's make it an acronym.  God will be the UIGO.

The UIGO is not only real but is being investigated by the people qualified to do so, namely, scientists, mathematicians, and logicians.

Well lets say this happened after the death of Barry Allen

OK, now I know you're all right.  Anybody who can name Barry Allen gets a high five, which we'll imagine this fellow to be doing.

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.

If the imperatives are validly logical then they will describe what must be true, and they will be correct always, to the extent our premises are complete and accurate.  Error as to what must be true is impossible, given complete and accurate data and valid logic.  The only reason scientists debate scientific questions is this: data at the current time is incomplete.

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?

Mystery.  In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.

[Velma]

Peace....

Of course. That's life, that's death. No fairy tales, no fictions. Being dead will essentially be the same as it was before I was born, or conceived. Why is that so scary, or difficult to handle?

I think it is a rather selfish concept.  


What of an atheist mother who has lost her child to a depraved pedophile and while frantically searching for answers and the remains of her young and innocent child, discovers that she is dying herself?

Is it irrational to hope...Hope...for something more...answers,  justice, or even being reunited with the loved one?  Can this dying atheist believe that there is justice inherent in nature when she has lost her child and will never know where the remains are, what circumstances lead to the childs death, or maybe if the child is still alive and continues to suffer? Or whether the person responsible will ever be caught, exposed, and brought to justice? Should this person go into the permanence of death thinking "Oh well, in a second I won't feel a thing and I won't have to worry about that anymore"?

More importantly how do you console the living in circumstances such as this?  What of the atheist husband who has to suffer knowing that while he may find answers someday his beloved wife suffered in her remaining days and ultimately died in anguish and utter despair? And how will this be equalized? Should he not seek to hunt this man down, and torture him mercilessly since imprisoning him and allowing him to enjoy even the most subtle benefits of living could not be just, and killing him quickly will do nothing but place him comfortably where he was before he was born?  

It seems that only by protracted punishment would the score be settled? Perhaps torturing him will not be enough since he may have caused the death of other children and he has definitely caused great suffering to atleast two the child and the mother...Perhaps other pedophiles should share in the fate of this man?

For the sake of clarifying where this slippery slope is leading to, if we discard the idea of an afterlife we by default explain to everyoine that all justice must happen in the present life or else the opportunity will be lost.  Social order breaks down thereafter.  

Perhaps heaven and hell and the day of reckoning are lies, but if they are they are necessary lies.

 Personally I think there is more to the afterlife than nothingness... and there are too many people of sound character and too many trained professionals who can attest to Near Death experiences where people were able to return and give details of things they could not have known while they were unconscious.  But that is an entirely different discussion.  



Whirling Moat

You have to accept that injustices will not always be addressed.  Even religion doesn't promise that - according to christian thought, a man who tortures, rapes, and murders little girls can still go to heaven even if he is never caught by the authorities.  All he has to do is accept Jesus as his savior and he gets to go to heaven, despite the fact that he caused huge amounts of suffering in this life.  I don't see where that idea has brought about disorder.  The afterlife is no guarantee of perfect justice.  Besides, if that is supposed to keep people in line, then it is not doing a very good job - even after adjusting for the percentage of believers vs the percentage of atheists in a given population, believers are still more likely to wind up being charged with a crime.

[McQ]

Peace....


I think it is a rather selfish concept.  

Ok, you have the right to think that. I disagree and think it is not. It is simply the acknowledgement of reality. It also causes me to appreciate this one and only life we have far more than I ever did as a Christian. Nothing selfish about that. What I believe to be selfish is lying for the purpose of giving others false hopes and beliefs. It is also unethical and cruel.

What of an atheist mother who has lost her child to a depraved pedophile and while frantically searching for answers and the remains of her young and innocent child, discovers that she is dying herself?

What of it? What of the Christian mother who experiences the same thing? Both live with terrible heartache and loss, granted. But one might choose to add to that grief a lie of utmost cruelty while the other chooses not to, instead acknowledging the fundamental truth that life is unfair. You need to broaden your worldview to recall that the human race has been here a long time, and for the vast majority of that time life has been (to paraphrase) nasty, brutish, and short.

Is it irrational to hope...Hope...for something more...answers,  justice, or even being reunited with the loved one?  Can this dying atheist believe that there is justice inherent in nature when she has lost her child and will never know where the remains are, what circumstances lead to the childs death, or maybe if the child is still alive and continues to suffer? Or whether the person responsible will ever be caught, exposed, and brought to justice? Should this person go into the permanence of death thinking "Oh well, in a second I won't feel a thing and I won't have to worry about that anymore"?

Not irrational to hope, but irrational to believe it. Next, justice is a human construct. It does not exist in nature. We have changed the meaning of justice as society has changed over the millennia as well. The justice you hope for is not the same as the justice that preindustrial societies lived with. Again, you cannot impose human concepts on nature, so you can only impose them on the society you live in, or in the case of historical revisionists, on previous societies.

More importantly how do you console the living in circumstances such as this?  What of the atheist husband who has to suffer knowing that while he may find answers someday his beloved wife suffered in her remaining days and ultimately died in anguish and utter despair? And how will this be equalized? Should he not seek to hunt this man down, and torture him mercilessly since imprisoning him and allowing him to enjoy even the most subtle benefits of living could not be just, and killing him quickly will do nothing but place him comfortably where he was before he was born?  

Me? How do I? Or how do others who don't believe in life after death? Can't answer for others. And you also inserted another what if into this that doesn't necessarily go along with that question, so I'll do my best to answer.
I don't swamp the living with useless platitudes about their dead, for one. I find the idiotic things people say during funerals to be just that. Idiotic. They are the words of people who don't know what to say, and have no concept of how much more the truth is helpful than the lies they repeat mindlessly. "Oh, Mary is in a better place, and you'll see her again someday."

Total garbage. They say something they don't even really believe, can't explain, and certainly can't know for sure, yet they say it as if they are the ultimate arbiters of our deaths. Cruel, stupid, thoughtless words.

It seems that only by protracted punishment would the score be settled? Perhaps torturing him will not be enough since he may have caused the death of other children and he has definitely caused great suffering to atleast two the child and the mother...Perhaps other pedophiles should share in the fate of this man?

What the believers do here in this case is by far the most ridiculous, unsupported, and damning perpetration of lies. You ask for protracted punishment. Believers give you hell. An imaginary place of ultimate suffering for all eternity. I propose no such thing. Since I believe our laws must be in accordance with social contract theory, we develop laws based on our best and most thoughtful knowledge of humanity. We continue to refine and improve laws to deal with our society and conditions. No make believe eternal punishment.

To add to this, the believers' ideas of punishment are stuck with some nagging issues of their own. For instance, the nasty pedophile you propose. In your scenario he might go to hell, right? But he might not. He may, in fact, be offered eternal glory with his lord and master, jesus christ. If your pedophile is a Christian, he's not going to hell, he's going to heaven. For eternity. To be rewarded.

For the sake of clarifying where this slippery slope is leading to, if we discard the idea of an afterlife we by default explain to everyoine that all justice must happen in the present life or else the opportunity will be lost.  Social order breaks down thereafter.  

Of course it does not. Social order increases with increasing knowledge of humanity and as humans learn more about what biological issues lead to things like mental illness, behavioral anomalies, and what social issues lead to similar things. In short, knowledge gains us the tools we need to provide justice.

Perhaps heaven and hell and the day of reckoning are lies, but if they are they are necessary lies.

Of course they are not, as I believe I have demonstrated. They are exactly the opposite, as they are the cruelest kind of lies.

Personally I think there is more to the afterlife than nothingness... and there are too many people of sound character and too many trained professionals who can attest to Near Death experiences where people were able to return and give details of things they could not have known while they were unconscious.  But that is an entirely different discussion.  

Ok, I have no problem with you thinking that there is more to the afterlife. I disagree with not only your conclusion, but also how you arrive at it. But that's ok. We simply disagree on this subject. By the way, you just made an assertion that is not supported by facts. No peer reviewed, clinical studies, or even review papers, have shown NDEs to be anything supernatural. And yes, you are right, it is an entirely different discussion.

I hope I have been clear in putting down my thoughts here. I typed this on an iPad in a noisy coffee shop, and it might have some errors of grammar and type in it.

[McQ]

And cheers to Velma, who said as much as I did in about a tenth of the space!

[Whitney]

I just combined 2 other recent topics into this one because they are all about what it would take to believe.

[elliebean]

You're on.

So let me get this straight...You are okay with never being touched again, never being warm again, never having sight, or an interestng thought..Never knowing love again..Never satisfying thirst again, or sensing the beating of your own heart, knowing that you will ultimately be forgotten and that all remembrance of you will be  lost in the oblivion of those things which will never be retrieved ...Never seeing another child, or trees, never enjoying another sunrise, or light, music, colors, the aroma of the ocean...A good book, or the excitement of learning? Never having your questions answered..  No more you..Forever...Nothing.  

You are cool with that?  When the time comes will you be prepared to say goodbye to so much?

To be fair, I've had more practice at it than most.

[bandit4god]

Thanks, Will, these are the items I took away:
- Prophesies fulfilled
- Scientific knowledge in holy books
- Miraculous occurances, especially brought about by prayer
- Direct manifestation of the divine
- Aliens who believe in the exact same religion
- Flawless and consistent holy book
- Religion whose followers have never taken part in atrocities

Do you agree with the video producer that any one of these would provide sufficient evidence in the existence of God?

I believe it was Carl Sagan that said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The evidence would have to be as astounding as the claim, but if such evidence existed and could be verified beyond doubt, sure. Several of these are already out for all known religions, though, such as prophesies fulfilled and a flawless and consistent holy book. The Torah, Bible, and Qur'an are all internally contradictory and all of them make prophesies which have not come to pass in the time provided by the prophesy.

1) Prophesies fulfilled:
Matthew 27:1-9 - When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. “I have sinned,” he said, “for I have betrayed innocent blood.”  â€œWhat is that to us?” they replied. “That’s your responsibility.”  So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.  The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day.  Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on him by the people of Israel, and they used them to buy the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.”

[Inevitable Droid]

(1) Prophesies fulfilled:
Matthew 27:1-9 - When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. “I have sinned,” he said, “for I have betrayed innocent blood.”  â€œWhat is that to us?” they replied. “That’s your responsibility.”  So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.  The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day.  Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on him by the people of Israel, and they used them to buy the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.”

The author obviously was aware of the prophesy, since he cites it.  He might have constructed his story in such a way as to ensure certain prophesies were portrayed as fulfilled.  Since the same author elsewhere portrays magic as fact, we have to take his every word as dubious.

When discussing reality with the scientifically minded, the bible is useless as a supporting reference.  Science is too, for your side of the discussion, since it argues against you unceasingly.  Your only available course, if you want to change the mind of someone who takes science as primary truth source, is to try to convince the person to stop taking science as primary truth source.  It's doubtful you'll succeed, but at least you'll be aiming at the right target.