Ask not "Does God exist?" Ask "Why is God not different than He is?"

[Gottservant]

And therein lies the flaw. You can come up with anything and call it self evident, but unless there's support, it means nothing.

And therein lies your flaw, you are expecting us to accept the futility of self-evidence as self-evident. But if that were true, you would not need to tell us. Therefore it has validity.

I said, therefore it has validity.

I much prefer the scientific proof because it is testable.

You should not concern yourself so much with what is testable, as what is workable.

A scientist with one idea about the universe, accomplishes many things; but a believer with one idea about God, accomplishes nothing.

A scientist with one idea about the universe, accomplishes many things BECAUSE HE MAKES WORK OF IT.

I said, BECAUSE he makes WORK of it.

 

[muichimotsu]

It just means that if strength can be added to it, it is probable that it will (exist). Because probability is cumulative and strongly probable, is strongly cumulative.

Probability is merely possibility, it isn't demonstrable by any necessity

The doubt is certainly real, the question is is the doubt relevant to the good that believing in God does?

What good is there to believing in God?

Except that what you discover is that your preconceived notion of something exists. But you never really know if you have discovered something, as it is. To discover something exists as it is you must accept that your preconceived notions as to the nature of something are irrelevant.

Discovering something as it is would require taking out the human filter, which is fundamentally impossible. You can get close, but taking out preconceived notions doesn't mean you take away individual sensory dispositions, etc.

I didn't say assume it is true, unless by that you mean provisionally. I said, "skip that, focus on something really challenging". You will find getting God to change is far harder, than getting God not to exist.

This already presumes God exists, not provisionally assenting for discussion purposes, which is fundamentally different

 

[muichimotsu]

And therein lies your flaw, you are expecting us to accept the futility of self-evidence as self-evident. But if that were true, you would not need to tell us. Therefore it has validity.

Self evidence is not always obvious or even perceptible to people who have already put particular blinders on, such as the insistence that faith is superior to skepticism

You should not concern yourself so much with what is testable, as what is workable.

One can take pragmatism too far, as William James did, as I recall

A scientist with one idea about the universe, accomplishes many things; but a believer with one idea about God, accomplishes nothing.

A scientist with one idea about the universe, accomplishes many things BECAUSE HE MAKES WORK OF IT.

A believer with any idea of God only accomplishes things because of scientific or otherwise demonstrable and testable laws in the universe. God is irrelevant to those laws existing, unless you want absolute ontological bases for understanding "Why" they exist.

A believer accomplishes nothing by mere belief, are we in agreement there?

 

[Tiberius]

And therein lies your flaw, you are expecting us to accept the futility of self-evidence as self-evident. But if that were true, you would not need to tell us. Therefore it has validity.

What does that even mean, "the futility of self-evidence"?

I said, therefore it has validity.

Things are not valid just because you say they are.

You should not concern yourself so much with what is testable, as what is workable.

And why on earth not? Why should I ever trust a single thing unless I can make sure it is actually true?

A scientist with one idea about the universe, accomplishes many things; but a believer with one idea about God, accomplishes nothing.

A scientist with one idea about the universe, accomplishes many things BECAUSE HE MAKES WORK OF IT.

I said, BECAUSE he makes WORK of it.

At least here we agree.

A scientist who examines the things he accepts as true, puts them to the test and discards those that fail the tests while holding onto the things that pass the tests will ALWAYS accomplish more than a believer who accepts everything on faith and never bothers to test it or verify that his beliefs are true.

 

[Tiberius]

It just means that if strength can be added to it, it is probable that it will (exist). Because probability is cumulative and strongly probable, is strongly cumulative.

This makes no sense.

How does one make an idea real by adding strength to it?

If I have the idea that my bank account has a million dollars in it, can I add strength to that idea to make myself rich? If so, how?

The doubt is certainly real, the question is is the doubt relevant to the good that believing in God does?

I won't deny that the IDEA of God has led people to do good in the past.

My claim is that if it is just the idea that is leading people to do this, then an actual god isn't required.

Except that what you discover is that your preconceived notion of something exists. But you never really know if you have discovered something, as it is. To discover something exists as it is you must accept that your preconceived notions as to the nature of something are irrelevant.

Which is why scientists have peer review. That way, any bias added by a particular scientist will be discovered and removed by all of the other scientists working on it.

I didn't say assume it is true, unless by that you mean provisionally. I said, "skip that, focus on something really challenging". You will find getting God to change is far harder, than getting God not to exist.

I said, getting God to change is far harder, than getting God not to exist.

And it's harder still to get him to exist in the first place.

 

[Gottservant]

Probability is merely possibility, it isn't demonstrable by any necessity

The Law of averages is a demonstration of necessary probability, just because you can't predict it, doesn't mean that for any given instant, the more average result isn't pending.

What good is there to believing in God?

Good works. Helping the poor, clothing the naked, tending to the sick.

Discovering something as it is would require taking out the human filter, which is fundamentally impossible. You can get close, but taking out preconceived notions doesn't mean you take away individual sensory dispositions, etc.

You my friend, are stuck inth e matrix.

This already presumes God exists, not provisionally assenting for discussion purposes, which is fundamentally different

Provisionally assenting is exactly what I am talking about. Look around... are you under threat? Is your life in danger? No? Why not begin to ask why God does not change?

As I said, it is harder to get God to change, than to get Him not to exist.

 

[Gottservant]

Self evidence is not always obvious or even perceptible to people who have already put particular blinders on, such as the insistence that faith is superior to skepticism

The point of self-evidence was in defence of an argument along those lines, pertaining to something someone above had written; you're right anything not taken in moderation is evil, but that hardly invalidates the argument I was defending

One can take pragmatism too far, as William James did, as I recall

You will have to explain that one; a little wikipedia research yields no immediate clues as to what you refer

A believer accomplishes nothing by mere belief, are we in agreement there?

We are in agreement as long as the subtext to your statement is not that the believer therefore accomplishes nothing, or that belief is futile.

Belief though it accomplishes nothing by itself, accomplishes all things by faith.

 

[Gottservant]

What does that even mean, "the futility of self-evidence"?

You said something along the lines of "nothing that is merely self-evident is of any value", as if that refuted a whole string of self-evident truths that were shared... but you expected us to accept that as self-evident, which is completely circular.

At least here we agree.

A scientist who examines the things he accepts as true, puts them to the test and discards those that fail the tests while holding onto the things that pass the tests will ALWAYS accomplish more than a believer who accepts everything on faith and never bothers to test it or verify that his beliefs are true.

Indeed as I said above, belief in itself accomplishes nothing.

But don't forget, with faith belief accomplishes all things.

 

[Gottservant]

This makes no sense.

How does one make an idea real by adding strength to it?

You do not need to add strength to it, the very fact that it is an idea means that it adds the strength of an idea to itself.

If I have the idea that my bank account has a million dollars in it, can I add strength to that idea to make myself rich? If so, how?

Start earning the money.

I won't deny that the IDEA of God has led people to do good in the past.

My claim is that if it is just the idea that is leading people to do this, then an actual god isn't required.

You are too quick to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Suppose an actual God isn't necessary, is keeping God out of the picture needed work or not? Because if He exists, He can only help anyway and if He doesn't help then it's not God.

And it's harder still to get him to exist in the first place.

True.

And then even still harder, to get Him to exist and not change and still help.

Where is this going?

 

[muichimotsu]

The Law of averages is a demonstration of necessary probability, just because you can't predict it, doesn't mean that for any given instant, the more average result isn't pending.

So your God will just pop into existence by laws of logic? even if that were so, you're subordinating your god to laws that seem to supersede it greatly

Good works. Helping the poor, clothing the naked, tending to the sick.

All of which can be done by more basic humanist empathy and tendencies to realize that the suffering of others is your suffering as well, in a certain sense. I need no God to tell me to be charitable or help others. I'm just not a nursemaid type, which is why I still need time to learn more empathy and such, and also why I'd prefer mentoring to nurturing children myself. Everyone is differnet, you see.

You my friend, are stuck in the matrix.

Fixed your little spelling error there. And you are stuck in the 90s and ironically, a more Buddhist/Hindu perspective is what drives that idea of the matrix. Or are you a Gnostic Christian, perhaps?

Provisionally assenting is exactly what I am talking about. Look around... are you under threat? Is your life in danger? No? Why not begin to ask why God does not change?

God changes with every individual that believes in it, so your point is moot, since you already presuppose some unfalsifiable and unverifiable God that "doesn't change" merely because you created a tautology of its existence to begin with. This is beyond sophistry, this is amateur theology and philosophy.

As I said, it is harder to get God to change, than to get Him not to exist.

Regardless of God's nature or existence, I see no reason to either acknowledge or worship it

 

[muichimotsu]

The point of self-evidence was in defence of an argument along those lines, pertaining to something someone above had written; you're right anything not taken in moderation is evil, but that hardly invalidates the argument I was defending

The validity of a point is not strictly about its self evidence, but whether it is consistent as well. There are a few determinant factors for the validity of something, to say nothing of its truth and veracity.

You will have to explain that one; a little wikipedia research yields no immediate clues as to what you refer

It's James' pragmatic theory of truth which he used to defend the holding of religious beliefs as a matter of pragmatism. It's absurd that a belief can be true merely because it has benefit to an individual to hold it, whatever that perceived benefit might be is incidental and coincidental at best. Look up The Will To Believe, that should be the point I'm getting at

We are in agreement as long as the subtext to your statement is not that the believer therefore accomplishes nothing, or that belief is futile.

A believer can accomplish things, but I'd very much argue any belief in and of itself is futile without an action motivated by it and supplanting it.

Belief though it accomplishes nothing by itself, accomplishes all things by faith.

The moving mountains nonsense again? Love to see you put Everest in a new place with your faith of a mustard seed. Faith is like belief in that it is fundamentally abstract in nature, an approach to things, not concrete in actions.

 

[Tiberius]

You said something along the lines of "nothing that is merely self-evident is of any value", as if that refuted a whole string of self-evident truths that were shared... but you expected us to accept that as self-evident, which is completely circular.

And where exactly did I say that?

Indeed as I said above, belief in itself accomplishes nothing.

But don't forget, with faith belief accomplishes all things.

Science has accomplished space travel, real time communication to the other side of the world, flat screen TVs, antibiotics, sanitary water supplies, teflon, bicycles and anasthetic, just off the top of my head.

What has belief accomplished in conjunction with faith?

 

[Tiberius]

You do not need to add strength to it, the very fact that it is an idea means that it adds the strength of an idea to itself.

That doesn't agree with what you said earlier, does it?

Start earning the money.

So the idea itself doesn't do anything!

You are too quick to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Suppose an actual God isn't necessary, is keeping God out of the picture needed work or not? Because if He exists, He can only help anyway and if He doesn't help then it's not God.

Stop muddying thew waters. Belief in God is not required for people to do good.

True.

And then even still harder, to get Him to exist and not change and still help.

Where is this going?

You missed my point.

I was saying that you need to prove that God exists before you start talking about what qualities he might have.

 

[Gottservant]

I need time to think about these suggestions.

 

[Gottservant]

And where exactly did I say that [that nothing self-evident has any value]?

And therein lies the flaw. You can come up with anything and call it self evident, but unless there's support, it means nothing.

After all, what is the point of being self-evident if you have to support it with something other than self-evidence.

Science has accomplished space travel, real time communication to the other side of the world, flat screen TVs, antibiotics, sanitary water supplies, teflon, bicycles and anasthetic, just off the top of my head.

What has belief accomplished in conjunction with faith?

We don't boast. But since you ask we have supplied food, water, clothing and education to most of the world's poorest countries, countries in the farthest reaches of the earth and countries that would otherwise have been neglected. Not to mention all the faith based discoveries that have been made, such as Mendel's on which our modern understanding of inheritance is based and Kepler's description of the Heavenly bodies, which all planetary science follows.

Of course, we could argue all day about who did what, in reality there are far more unbelieving people who set about doing some ordinary work than there are believers who abandoned the simple life for some great dream of invention. Jesus himself had no pretensions about the fact that people of the world get more done than believers (Luke 16:8), but the point is not that something gets done. The point is that what gets done reflects the Wisdom with which God has done everything.

I myself endeavour to be good to every man, which is easy, even those that are not considered men, which is hard. I set about giving despondent people hope, bound people freedom, struggling people a helping hand. These are not foolish things because they are not on tv. They are helpful things that have nothing to do with the latest gadget.

 

[Gottservant]

That doesn't agree with what you said earlier, does it?

I think you will find that what I said is consistent with the idea that probability is cumulative. This is evidenced as I said, by the law of averages.

So the idea itself doesn't do anything!

I think you'll find that if you had no idea, you wouldn't earn the money. It's as simple as that.

Stop muddying thew waters. Belief in God is not required for people to do good.

It is nevertheless required for people to do good, well.

You missed my point.

I was saying that you need to prove that God exists before you start talking about what qualities he might have.

That would be true if you desired to possess God, like a man possesses a thing.

But if you doubted that God existed, why would you try to possess Him?

 

[Tiberius]

After all, what is the point of being self-evident if you have to support it with something other than self-evidence.

The trouble is that I can use that and claim that anything is self evidence. "It is self-evident that the moon is really made from cheese." At the end of the day, you can claim that a thing is self evident, but it's still just a claim and requires support.

We don't boast. But since you ask we have supplied food, water, clothing and education to most of the world's poorest countries, countries in the farthest reaches of the earth and countries that would otherwise have been neglected.

Given that secular charities have also done this, I don't think you can claim that religion is required for this. And it is science that provided the water purification methods used, and the children are taught scientific facts (unless people go and convert them to Christianity, which is kinda mean, I think.)

Not to mention all the faith based discoveries that have been made, such as Mendel's on which our modern understanding of inheritance is based and Kepler's description of the Heavenly bodies, which all planetary science follows.

Just because they were religious, doesn't mean their religion was the source of their discoveries. They found what they discovered by following the scientific method. They did not pray and find their discoveries.

Of course, we could argue all day about who did what, in reality there are far more unbelieving people who set about doing some ordinary work than there are believers who abandoned the simple life for some great dream of invention. Jesus himself had no pretensions about the fact that people of the world get more done than believers (Luke 16:8), but the point is not that something gets done. The point is that what gets done reflects the Wisdom with which God has done everything.

This would seem to be an unsupported claim.

I myself endeavour to be good to every man, which is easy, even those that are not considered men, which is hard. I set about giving despondent people hope, bound people freedom, struggling people a helping hand. These are not foolish things because they are not on tv. They are helpful things that have nothing to do with the latest gadget.

And if, for whatever reason, you found that there was no god, would you still do these things? Would you give despondent people hope, bound people freedom, struggling people a helping hand if you did not believe in God?

 

[Tiberius]

I think you will find that what I said is consistent with the idea that probability is cumulative. This is evidenced as I said, by the law of averages.

Probability is not cumulative. If you toss a coin, the probability of each toss is 50/50. There is no law that says, "Well, Gott just tossed a million heads in a row, so the next one must be tails." Each toss is completely independent of everything that came before it.

I think you'll find that if you had no idea, you wouldn't earn the money. It's as simple as that.

So the idea is nothing more than a motivational force. But my point is that the idea is completely internal to me, and has no influence on the outside world. Anything that does have an influence is an action performed by me.

It is nevertheless required for people to do good, well.

No it isn't.

That would be true if you desired to possess God, like a man possesses a thing.

But if you doubted that God existed, why would you try to possess Him?

Huh?

That's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that if you want me to accept that God has certain attributes, you must first show em that God exists. Non-existent things have no attributes, after all.

In other words, your original question - "Why is God the way he is" - assumes that he exists in the first place. Starting with an assumption is not the best way to start.

 

[Gottservant]

Recently detained for four days, will take time to reply.

 

[Gottservant]

The trouble is that I can use that and claim that anything is self evidence. "It is self-evident that the moon is really made from cheese." At the end of the day, you can claim that a thing is self evident, but it's still just a claim and requires support.

That is not the nature of what is self-evident. You are in a philosophy forum, I remind you.

Given that secular charities have also done this, I don't think you can claim that religion is required for this. And it is science that provided the water purification methods used, and the children are taught scientific facts (unless people go and convert them to Christianity, which is kinda mean, I think.)

Ok. And what are you going to do about it? Besides debunk my faith in God, I mean. There are people starving and in need of water and clothing, and so far all you've done is attempt to demoralize my God.

You have to understand that I am aware that there is a spark there, that if you believe in God, you will want to do something about it? Can you see that? Can you see that in a completely harmless way, I am saying "let's get motivated, here's motivation I use, let's go!".

Just because they were religious, doesn't mean their religion was the source of their discoveries. They found what they discovered by following the scientific method. They did not pray and find their discoveries.

You wanted to boast, now you don't want to boast. Is the subject discoveries or something else?

And the scientific method? Is it not a kind of prayer?

This would seem to be an unsupported claim.

You have to take it on faith.

And if, for whatever reason, you found that there was no god, would you still do these things? Would you give despondent people hope, bound people freedom, struggling people a helping hand if you did not believe in God?

If there was no God, I would find it impossible to help them, whether for personal reasons, physical limitations, a lack of resources or any other innumerable thing. Why? Because if there was no God, my thoughts would be futile, my resolve would be weak, my expectations would be low and the point would be absent.

Ever heard the expression, "we learn from our mistakes"? Perhaps you would do well to make the mistake of wondering why God does not change. As it is, you are merely questioning the same thing over and over again, with no light and no way forward. I mean, think about it, if there is no God, can you not afford to make a mistake and assume his existence is not the most relevant detail of His being? Is it really wrong to make that "mistake"?