How does one come to believe something?

[Davian]

=== REPLY:

I think it's safe to assume that you are replying.

1) Suddenly, you've lost your curiosity about Dark Energy? -- Where did I say that? [You said: "While I may follow the topic with interest, their conclusions do not really concern me. It's not like it will affect the price of milk at the market"]

Nothing about curiosity in there. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else?

2) a) Fact is, that scientists have not reached any conclusions or even have clues. b) They are just trying to find something to add to their "perfect" equations to make them work! -- Provide a citation for this "fact". [No citation needed. For a), I can't provide a negative (no reports about no conclusions). You need to show me where scientists have done such w Dark Energy. b) Is my conclusion. ]

Your conclusion does not equal "fact".

3) Meanwhile, we God-people, -- Are you their spokesperson? [Of course not. What indicates this? I just say that, as a God believing person, I make these comments. How could you spin this?]

You said "we", as if you were a spokesperson for a particular group.

4) theists, have a possible answer -- until scientists come up w a better answer. -- Please show how "goddidit" is a possible answer. [Show? Huh? I just stated a suggestion! What word(s) don't you understand? "How about Dark Energy, simply, being the continuation of God's creation -- to continue to supply the universe w (addtl) energy?" ]

I do not presume that your suggestions are possible just because you declare them so.

5) -- to continue to supply the universe w energy? -- Since when does the universe need a supply of energy that it does not already have? Can you provide a scientific citation for this? [Again, no cite needed. And, there's nothing about the universe "needing a supply of energy". The fact is, from basic (recent) science, w many references, that the universe is not only expanding, but at an increasingly greater rate. This requires added energy,

Provide a citation for this.

as God provide during creation

Unevidenced, untestable, and unfalsifiable claim.

-- and common sense.]

Common sense would have us believing that the Earth is flat and the cosmos rotates around us.

6) God ... -- Scientifically define what you mean by "God" [So, you want me to define a spiritual entity in terms of physical qualities?

No, I want you to define this "entity" in manner that might differentiate it from "imaginary".

Obviously, you can't bridge this gap of concepts.

Obviously, you can't bridge this gap of concepts. That burden lies with you; I am not going to build this bridge for you.

Apparently, you only have the capacity (or the will) for the physical, scientific half of our humanity.]

Call me sceptical, but I do not think the imaginary half should be considered as part of reality, if it cannot be shown to be otherwise.

 

[lumberjohn]

=== REPLY: 1) Ask Stephen Hawkins (Mr. Big Bang) abt. this one!

Actually, it is Stephen HAWKING, which is merely one of the things that indicates to me you have no expertise in this area. But let's look at what Mr. Hawking has to say on this issue:

"At . . . the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang.

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside."

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

In other words, you cannot extrapolate past the Big Bang. Per Mr. Hawkins.

 

[Chany]

=== REPLY: You just switched the topic & spin, again! Anyone else can see that, yes, I am concerned (call it "negative") about our current social trend toward a Godless society. And, that this is very different than seeing pros & cons of our Amer. tradition (esp the last 60 yrs) and choosing to bring out the positives needed in today's America. So, you have a problem w this?

How can "God" (a rather wide term used to describe a slew of deities and different beings) bring out the positives needed in today's society? The point of bringing up ancient Greek culture and other successful non-Western societies was to show that the god of classical theism is not really needed to promote a good and stable society. If it was not required for humans in a multitude of different settings, then it is hard to see how deities are necessary for the modern American society. Generally, whenever I hear the term "God can help society", it usually put forth as some sort of magical panacea to complex social ills.

What even are the positives needed in today's societies? I have a feeling that some of the things you would consider negatives are things I would be indifferent about or changes I would consider positive.

So, instead of making vague references to ideas or notions of "positive changes to American society", please describe what you think the problems are, how things ought to be, how can adding deities solve this problem, and how can we add deities to the solution in a practical and moral manner?

 

[jonesdon]

To ALL -- I was given several websites to investigate and several have mentioned Jerry Coyne's book "Faith & Fact: Why Science & Religion Are Incompatible". They mention that, apparently, they've had few challengers. OK, here I am! For responders, I would like to know if you've read Dawkins' "God Delusion", Harris' "End of Faith" and/or Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian".
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpres...-religiosity-and-well-being-among-u-s-states/
http://www.smartskeptic.com/argumen...-can-humans-be-moral-without-god-or-religion/

As expected, from a brief read of the websites (and I plan to purchase Coyne), they follow the logic of Dawkins, Harris, & Russell. This is that the only facts are scientific facts. To me, this is ignoring a complete half, the most important half, of our humanity -- our spiritual (religious) or mental (psychological & philosophical) -- the unique side. Are they saying that there are no such facts in these areas? Or, another area, one of my hobbies, there's no genealogical facts?

The "evolutionistrue" site ref. is really about the correlation bet. religiosity & "well-being". This relates to a similar study by PEW in 2002, Religion & GDP in their "Global Attitudes Project". So, it's not new. The domestic stats are interesting. These studies present the facts -- the statistics. It is the analysts, the interpreters, that I find have spun this in their direction with a logic fallacy. These groups are saying that those countries w more religion have more social issues (many streaming from poverty). They conclude, then, this is because of religion!

Well, the other side can see another "spin". With poverty, religion is more important! So, religion is not the cause, but the effect. The Pew study had a clearer graphic of GDP vs. religiosity. Very clear was that the less religious, the more tech advanced (and wealthy) the nations were. Just as for this latest study, the US was an outlier! I see this as Americans being a nation of "belongers" and for political expendiency, belonging to a church is good thing Nothing about real faith here!

Meanwhile, as I've often said, we've outsmarted ourselves here in American (and the West). We have gotten too smart for a God -- as more & more seem to think. Others, as New Agers, even see ourselves as the gods of our own universe (YCYOR -- creating your own reality/universe). And, my point has been, for me, this surely shows in our society in the loss of our trad. American traditions & values! ;-(

I've gotten no response to my questions & examples about the practical, pragmatic use of believing in a God concept. And, I will continue to give such examples/questions. E.G. Would you trust someone, that has a social need to belong or make money, to keep a secret than someone that realizes they are accountable to a Higher Power and such breaking of confidence would affect their destiny -- life after death?

 

[jonesdon]

1) Your conclusion does not equal "fact". 2) Common sense would have us believing that the Earth is flat and the cosmos rotates around us. 3) No, I want you to define this "entity" in manner that might differentiate it from "imaginary". 4) Obviously, you can't bridge this gap of concepts. That burden lies with you; I am not going to build this bridge for you. 5) Call me skeptical, but I do not think the imaginary half should be considered as part of reality, if it cannot be shown to be otherwise.

=== REPLY: 1) True. I, also, said "suggestion", 2) Nope, not in today's world, 3-5) See the 2nd para. of my recent post (#545). If the physical world is all that you know, we have no further basis for argument.

 

[jonesdon]

How can "God" ... bring out the positives needed in today's society? ... Generally, whenever I hear the term "God can help society", it usually put forth as some sort of magical panacea to complex social ills.

What even are the positives needed in today's societies? I have a feeling that some of the things you would consider negatives are things I would be indifferent about or changes I would consider positive. So, instead of making vague references ...

=== REPL: Perhaps, you need to reread some of my prev. posts (#187, #382, and esp. #466. There are very specific examples here. And, by the more recent post (#545) I will be providing more. Stay tuned.

 

[jonesdon]

1) Actually, it is Stephen HAWKING, which is merely one of the things that indicates to me you have no expertise in this area.

2) But let's look at what Mr. Hawking has to say on this issue: http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html -- In other words, you cannot extrapolate past the Big Bang. Per Mr. Hawkins.

=== REPLY: 1) Yep! I guess I (or my computer) crossed his name w Dawkins! ;-) And, funny that you would make such a speedy & complete judgment on me! ;-) This just shows your "true grit"! ;-) And, typical of a Godless person?

2) I didn't see a date on your ref.. I saw a comment in Science mag. only several years ago -- a "later" opinion of Hawking. But, he just indicated that there must be a prev. Big Bang. I added the regressive series.

3) From the website: "Note that there may be incorrect spellings, punctuation and/or grammar in this document. This is to allow correct pronunciation and timing by a speech synthesiser." I need to save this to use myself! ;-)

 

[Davian]

=== REPLY: 1) True. I, also, said "suggestion", 2) Nope, not in today's world,

Even more so in today's world. Just look to the 9/11 conspiracies, anti-vaxxers, and homeopathy.

3-5) See the 2nd para. of my recent post (#545).

Fact - noun; a thing that is indisputably the case.

Tell me how you would demonstrate that one of your "spiritual" "facts" is indisputable. Do it without using science.

If the physical world is all that you know, we have no further basis for argument.

I have made no such statement.

However, if you are unable to demonstrate the validity of your "spiritual/religious" claims, then you have no further basis for argument. I am doubtful that will slow you down from trying.

 

[jonesdon]

1) Even more so in today's world. Just look to the 9/11 conspiracies, anti-vaxxers, and homeopathy. 2) Fact - noun; a thing that is indisputably the case. 3) Tell me how you would demonstrate that one of your "spiritual" "facts" is indisputable. Do it without using science. 4) I have made no such statement. 5) However, if you are unable to demonstrate the validity of your "spiritual/religious" claims, then you have no further basis for argument. I am doubtful that will slow you down from trying.

=== RESP: 1) I was referring to your flat earth statement. But, yes, I agree, "even more so today" as conspiracy theory & such is very profitable -- esp. selling to gullible people!

2) I'm OK w your "fact" definition. Yes, many of my facts are "indisputable" to many people. And, I'm talking about non-science. If we did this democratically, I have more "fact" support than you do!

3) I have told you, but you can't see beyond your scientific, physical, sensual evidence. See #479 abt. evidence. 4) In a sense, as in the prev., you have.

5) For some, I need no further "claims". For others, as you, there's no hope. I hope to deal w those in the middle -- i.e. really open-minded and/or can think outside the box (i.e. w concepts). You are right, for those in the middle, I'm not slowing down from trying. For such as you, I'll just continue to challenge your one-sided, limited, perspective.

 

[Davian]

=== RESP:

Just "Davian" is fine.

1) I was referring to your flat earth statement. But, yes, I agree, "even more so today" as conspiracy theory & such is very profitable -- esp. selling to gullible people!

Indeed. Religions take in billions of dollars very year.

2) I'm OK w your "fact" definition. Yes, many of my facts are "indisputable" to many people. And, I'm talking about non-science. If we did this democratically, I have more "fact" support than you do!

The exploration of reality is not done democratically. Shall we vote on the speed of light? The best substance for the manufacture of transistors? The existence of Bigfoot?

3) I have told you, but you can't see beyond your scientific, physical, sensual evidence. See #479 abt. evidence.

Your protestations aside, it does not appear that you can see anything either.

4) In a sense, as in the prev., you have.

Nope. Do not misrepresent my position.

5) For some, I need no further "claims". For others, as you, there's no hope. I hope to deal w those in the middle -- i.e. really open-minded and/or can think outside the box (i.e. w concepts). You are right, for those in the middle, I'm not slowing down from trying. For such as you, I'll just continue to challenge your one-sided, limited, perspective.

You could begin that challenge by demonstrating the existence of these alleged "limits".

 

[jonesdon]

Has there been enough hate killings yet for you to realize that America needs help in returning to respect & value for human life? So, what do atheists do to develop this in society -- esp. for those people that get in your way of earthly happiness?

 

[Davian]

Has there been enough hate killings yet for you to realize that America needs help in returning to respect & value for human life? So, what do atheists do to develop this in society -- esp. for those people that get in your way of earthly happiness?

What has that to do with the OP?

 

[jonesdon]

Just "Davian" is fine.


Indeed. Religions take in billions of dollars very year.


The exploration of reality is not done democratically. Shall we vote on the speed of light? The best substance for the manufacture of transistors? The existence of Bigfoot?


Your protestations aside, it does not appear that you can see anything either.


Nope. Do not misrepresent my position.


You could begin that challenge by demonstrating the existence of these alleged "limits".

=== RESP: Nothing worth responding to here. BTW: You're trying to find a demo for "limits" -- like for max & min? ;-) Good luck

 

[jonesdon]

Has there been enough hate killings yet for you to realize that America needs help in returning to respect & value for human life? So, what do atheists do to develop this in society -- esp. for those people that get in your way of earthly happiness? === What has that to do with the OP? -- What has that to do with the OP?

RESP: The same as my original question -- which you can't or won't answer! Atheists really don't care about promoting respect & value for human life, huh?

 

[Davian]

=== RESP: Nothing worth responding to here. BTW: You're trying to find a demo for "limits" -- like for max & min? ;-) Good luck

You are the one claiming that these 'limits' exist. I see no reason to believe you.

 

[Davian]

RESP: The same as my original question -- which you can't or won't answer! Atheists really don't care about promoting respect & value for human life, huh?

Do you collect stamps?

 

[jonesdon]

Do you collect stamps?

=== REPLY: Can't you answer simple questions?

 

[jonesdon]

You are the one claiming that these 'limits' exist. I see no reason to believe you.

===REPLY: Then, don't. Who cares?

 

[SkyWriting]

No it's not. Premise one is not true. People believe things for all kinds of reasons, some valid and some not. I've had plenty of people tell me that I should believe first and then the understanding will be given to me. Clearly this is not belief based on the evaluation of evidence.

Correct. Faith is faith based.
Belief can have multiple sources.

 

[Davian]

=== REPLY: Can't you answer simple questions?

You question was faulty. Allow me to demonstrate with this question to you:

Do you collect stamps?