Does God exist? (4 Viewers)

[BradCube]

how would one get such personal experiences in the first place?

No idea. How does that sit as an answer? Probably not too well I imagine, but it's pretty honest since I know you have said that you have tried to seek out God before.

I suppose the typical answers here would be prayer, worship and hearing God voice. I realize all of these answers probably seem a little hard to confirm externally but I suppose that is simply the nature of "personal experiences".

Sorry, I'm not being anymore helpful than that but I don't know that I can be. My only thought is that you are still seeking out God and simply have no found him yet.

If that were the case then I would suggest you do what you are doing now - researching stuff like this with an open and unbiased mind. If you are serious I would also honestly suggest praying about it too (regardless of whether you believe this will or won't have any impact)

 

[BradCube]

You seem to be arguing that belief in God is logical when people are ignorant? I think self-criticism should be fairly important to any person. I've had many experiences where I've thought I've seen someone out of the corner of my eye and such, I recognise that it's a trick of my mind though because the proposition that it's really a ghost (or other apparition) is so extraordinary that I'd require much more evidence than just my experiences.

I don't know about ignorant, un-educated or misinformed maybe. However, I was surprised to see arguments for people reasonably holding ignorant views earlier in this thread so it's interesting to see it come back the other way.

So yeah, properly basic until evidence is brought up that is contrary to that belief. Then it just becomes illogical ignorance unless there are other reasons to continue supporting the belief.

Whether you believe God exists or not, surely you have to admit that issues with the brain are more firmly evidenced truths than the existence of God?

Yeah, of course, but we are talking about properly basic beliefs here which don't have scientific proofs or evidence.

 

[Kwayera]

http://www.phys.uoa.gr/~nektar/orthodoxy/explanatory/in_search_of_god.htm

 

[KFunk]

I don't know about ignorant, un-educated or misinformed maybe. However, I was surprised to see arguments for people reasonably holding ignorant views earlier in this thread however so it's interesting to see it come back the other way.

So yeah, properly basic until evidence is brought up that is contrary to that belief. Then it just becomes illogical ignorance unless there are other reasons to continue supporting the belief.

Think about our present debate though. It doesn't mean much to say 'ignorant people can reasonable maintain a belief in god'. Of course there will exist states of belief in which the level of ignorance is so thorough that the proposition 'god exists' is supported (this is not a cheap stab - such an ignorant belief state could probably be thought up for most propositions regarding the existence of entities). I'm not really sure that a belief in 'god experience' can really be held as properly basic if it is untenable in the face of a great number of axiomatic beliefs regarding logic and empirical observation.

Take the following analogy: after spending too much time spinning in my desk chair ("weeee!" etc...) I might conclude, after the diziness that follows, that if I spin my chair too hard I can (1) make the Earth spin about me on its axis or, alternatively, I might think that I (2) generate a small, localised earthquake. Now, as things stand, I have attended lectures on vestibular function and, as a result, I know better! Firstly, I can account for the experiences, more or less, in terms of vestibular function and the associated neuroanatomy. Secondly, I know enough science (conservation of energy, momentum etc...) to know that spinning my desk chair simply won't throw out the Earth's axis or generate earthquakes like that. In the context of all these beliefs can I really view such 'earthquake' or 'Earth-axis' beliefs as properly basic? Only from an extremely ignorant (by modern standards) perspective - and I don't know whether that is worth much. By analogy, the important task with respect to 'god experience' beliefs is to determine how they fit into similarly canonical belief structures.

Also, I feel that the more relevant sense of 'properly basic', for this debate, is of the sort attributed to logical theorems which are simply 'apparently true'. We don't revise these in the way we revise sensation-derived beliefs.

 

[michael1990]

See a debate that will just keep on rolling on!

 

[Slidey]

God is a prime example of cognitive dissonance that increases as one grows older.

Most people either find an alternate theory (e.g. atheism), or become apologetic (e.g. "but 6,000 is an abstract concept - it's not meant to be taken literally"). The problem is, as time goes on they become more and more apologetic, until they're essentially explaining away the entire religion. For many this leads to cognitive dissonance that cannot be resolved without an alternate theory; refinement of the original no longer works.

 

[BradCube]

Also, I feel that the more relevant sense of 'properly basic', for this debate, is of the sort attributed to logical theorems which are simply 'apparently true'. We don't revise these in the way we revise sensation-derived beliefs.

You've pretty much indicated here the line of thinking I have been having all day. After reflecting on yesterdays conversation I don't think that I can reasonably hold that belief in God is properly basic - at least certainly not in the sense that our perception of reality through our senses is accurate. This mainly stems from the fact that we are first relying on these properly basic beliefs to form this "properly basic" belief in God. This means it is not properly basic at all as far as I can tell.

I would still hold that for many the perceived experiences they "believe" they have had with God are enough to sustain their belief in God despite what may seem to be contradictory evidences. This could be for better or for worse and I think it applies the other way too - ie lack of experience with God means that God cannot exist even if evidence was contradictory.

In my experience with both Christians and non-Christians I have found it very apparent that many are happy to believe what they currently do and not really question it. I certainly cannot maintain a position myself but I know many who don't really care to think to much about why they have the beliefs they do. I assume this must be no more than a personality difference.

On a separate note, in my reading today I came across talk about Arguments from analogy. I have of course seen this reasoning numerous times before but never had it placed into a real technical term. What is everyones thoughts on it's validity and uses?

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

I think analogy is a strong form of argument in the sense that I think it can be used to force someone to be consistent in their principles, which I personally think is half the battle. If you can present an analogous case whereby someone acts differently, they then have to explain what about the case is different an justify why that difference warrants a different response.

I would still hold that for many the perceived experiences they "believe" they have had with God are enough to sustain there belief in despite what may seem to be contradictory evidences. This could be for better or for worse and I think it applies the other way too - ie lack of experience with God means that God cannot exist even if evidence was contradictory.

To me this seems self evident... you're saying that someone is "justified" in believing in God because of X,Y,Z factors, but in the end no matter how we view a person they will believe X for a reason that is deterministically imo beyond their control. When I speak about someone being logical or reasonable, I am trying to disconnect such determinist factors from them.

 

[Vauxhall]

No.

 

[BradCube]

God is a prime example of cognitive dissonance that increases as one grows older.

Most people either find an alternate theory (e.g. atheism), or become apologetic (e.g. "but 6,000 is an abstract concept - it's not meant to be taken literally"). The problem is, as time goes on they become more and more apologetic, until they're essentially explaining away the entire religion. For many this leads to cognitive dissonance that cannot be resolved without an alternate theory; refinement of the original no longer works.

What a fantastic term! I will be sure to add that to my vocabulary. I often find myself in the position of cognitive dissonance on both sides of the coin in relation to Gods existance, nature etc.

Adopting a different theory is definitely plausible although it doesn't have to require giving away the whole theory (as in the case of atheism), just refinement of the current theory (as in the case of apologetics I suppose).

At the same time however, I am slightly confused by your examples. Certainly atheists would also feel the pressures of cognitive dissonance?

Secondly, what does an apologist referring to 6000 years as interpretive have do do with anything an apologist stands for? I'm guessing you're referring to the age of the earth? If so I don't think apologists maintain that the bible says the earth is 6000 years old, only that the bible's records date back about 6000 years. In this way, you're looking at the approximate date for the beginning of human existance, not the earths existance.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

God is a prime example of cognitive dissonance that increases as one grows older.

Most people either find an alternate theory (e.g. atheism), or become apologetic (e.g. "but 6,000 is an abstract concept - it's not meant to be taken literally"). The problem is, as time goes on they become more and more apologetic, until they're essentially explaining away the entire religion. For many this leads to cognitive dissonance that cannot be resolved without an alternate theory; refinement of the original no longer works.

i think the term is 'ad hoc'

 

[BradCube]

No.

Care to share reasons for that viewpoint?

 

[BradCube]

To me this seems self evident... you're saying that someone is "justified" in believing in God because of X,Y,Z factors, but in the end no matter how we view a person they will believe X for a reason that is deterministically imo beyond their control. When I speak about someone being logical or reasonable, I am trying to disconnect such determinist factors from them.

Could you restate all of this for me? I am completely lost in what you are trying to say.

 

[Vauxhall]

Care to share reasons for that viewpoint?

I should restate what I said;

No, I don't believe there is.

There.

Why? Well, what are we calling 'God'? A higher power, right? Then maybe yes. We could say that Earth is God. But the whole man in the clouds thing, errrr, no thanks. People need things to be visual (the devil with a pitchfork surrounded by flames, god as an old man in the sky) Religion is totally based on people's choices and to 'dumb it down' to a childs story book makes me angry. The fact that people can't use their brains enough to have "illogical"(<-- dripping in sarcasm) thoughts...that they NEED it specifically written out for them....I question their overall brainpower.

Sorry if I come off harsh.

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

Could you restate all of this for me? I am completely lost in what you are trying to say.

Ok say someone is hooked up to a computer program which compels them to think X, we'd then say (imo, using your definitions) that they are justified and logical in thinking X. You're saying that someone's experiences in the world are the computer program and they've compelled them to believe X.

 

[BradCube]

i think its perfectly valid, used all the time in science and math to formulate hypothesis/ solve problems.

Ok cool, so I have had two affirmatives now. Take a listen to this idea that I have come across recently then and let me know how you feel it holds up.

"If the only time we see information written - whether it's painting on a cave wall or book from Amazon.com- is when there's an intelligence behind it, the wouldn't that also be true of nature itself?"

ie, this is talking about the extremely detailed information encoded on the DNA of every cell of every living creature. Does this not imply creation from intelligence?

 

[zstar]

A higher must exist because life cannot be created "accidently", Do you realise how complex our ecosystems are?

Here's one anaolgy.

If you gave me a sheets of paper and ink and kept throwing ink randomly on those pieces of paper, No matter how long I spray ink on paper there's no way i'll be able to write a coherant story not even in a thousand years. If I had pieces of wood and kept throwing them around I would not be able create a chair or a table no matter how long I threw them.

So if something as simple as a chair or a book cannot be created by accident then how on earth can something as complex as the air we breathe, the water we drink or lands we stand on been accidental?

Only a higher being could have been able to program everything correctly in order to sustain life.

 

[boris]

A higher must exist because life cannot be created "accidently", Do you realise how complex our ecosystems are?

Here's one anaolgy.

If you gave me a sheets of paper and ink and kept throwing ink randomly on those pieces of paper, No matter how long I spray ink on paper there's no way i'll be able to write a coherant story not even in a thousand years. If I had pieces of wood and kept throwing them around I would not be able create a chair or a table no matter how long I threw them.

So if something as simple as a chair or a book cannot be created by accident then how on earth can something as complex as the air we breathe, the water we drink or lands we stand on been accidental?

Only a higher being could have been able to program everything correctly in order to sustain life.

Shit analogy.

You need a better grasp of basic chemistry. Nothing proposed by science was accidental.

What you're proposing (throwing ink on paper) are deliberate events anyway, not accidents.
Flawed.

Fail.

 

[pattii]

i saw magik today it was awesome

 

[zstar]

Shit analogy.

You need a better grasp of basic chemistry. Nothing proposed by science was accidental.

What you're proposing (throwing ink on paper) are deliberate events anyway, not accidents.
Flawed.

Fail.

The how do these elements come together to be stable enough? Ever asked that question?

Who or what decides how stable an atom is?