God: the best possible explanation (moral ontological argument time)

[GrowingSmaller]

I'ld dare to say that the only people who are negatively affected by the idea that there is no god who's watching their every move and who provides anything and everything to make the universe work the way it does... are people that have been submerged and indoctrinated in religious theistic thinking since birth.

I find it very hard to believe that someone's mood is actuallynegatively affected by a realising a certain mechanism that might have brought the universe into existence 13.7 billion years ago is unrelated to some god.

There you go, strong atheism. You ought to say, may or may not be related....

But youre right that people tend to be comfortable with their beliefs rather than other's.

In any caseany self respecting scientist knwos theres more toreality that he knows, because science is ever expanding and last year we knew less than we know now etc. Hence youought tobe comfortable with at least the possibility of other realms, even if theyre known via negativa.

Anyway I go along with the Unitarian formula of "reason, conscience, experience, liberty". Whilsy reason may point (scientifically at least) to non theism, there is conscience, experience and liberty to add to ones life decisions.

I have been atheist before and theres a sudden switch to "hey now I am super rational", whilst for the most part I am the same person as before. I think that maybe I am now more open to the possibility of my own fallibility as a theist, which is paradoxically more humble that I was as a secure in belief nonbeliever.

I wouldnt say I am plagued by "gullibility" though, but fallibility. Gullible is a loaded term.I know what I believe is as Neitzche would say "an interpretation" (he argued theres no truths only interpretations) rather than believed with little thought or sense. In the realm of interpretations, non theism and theism are alike dispositions, voluntarily chosed in the absence of "compelling" evidence either way. I guess you believe otherwise?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

"What is comfortable does not matter nore is it interesting. What matters to me is that which is actually true - regardless of my emotional response." Dawkins.

Well I believe that mattering comes in part from our emotional capacity, in that they are evaluational. This neglect of emoti9n is pseudo philosophy, which does not entail we indulge them fancifully, but nor treat them as nihilistically or become aloof from what is our humanity.

 

[DogmaHunter]

There you go, strong atheism

Strong atheism, sometimes also called gnostic atheism, is the claim that gods do not exist. I don't make that claim and I most certainly didn't in the post you are replying to. Even less in the part you actually quoted.

I was making a statement about the emotional effect (or rather, the lack thereof) of a person who doesn't buy into gods watching their every move and accepting that natural phenomena have natural effects, the origin of the universe being no exception.

You ought to say, may or may not be related....

Off course I can be wrong. Everybody can be wrong about anything.
However, I can only go by what I know and experience. And it just happens to be the case that I only and exclusively hear theists make the claim that life would have no meaning (or similar) if there were no gods.

I don't know any atheists who think like that. I don't even know any ex-theists who still think like that.

It seems to be an idea that is entirely exclusive to theists.

In any caseany self respecting scientist knwostheres more toreality that he knows, because science is ever expanding and last year we knew less than we know now etc

Sure. But that doesn't mean that we should be considering, or attributing equal value, to any idea your imagination can produce.

. hence youought tobe comfortable with at least the possibility of other realms, even if theyre known via negativa.

Why?
I'm "comfortable" with anything anyones imagination can produce. The question is not "is it possible?". The question is "is it plausible / likely?"

Some ideas are simply baseless and stupid. And we don't need to know everything about everything to identify them as such.

ANyway I go along with the Unitarian formula of "reason, conscience, experience, liberty". Whilsy reason may point (scientifically at least) to non theism, there is conscience, experience and liberty to add to ones life decisions.

Do you acknowledge that all 4 can be in conflict? That reason might lead to a conclusion that is quite opposite to your experience for example?

If yes, then which of these 4 gets priority over the others?
If all 4 lead you to a different conclusion, which one do you pick to stick with and why?

I can provide examples if that makes it easier.

I have been atheist before and theres a sudden switch to "hey now I am super rational", whilst for the most part I am the same person as before.

I don't consider myself "super rational" per say because I'm an atheist. I will agree off course that I think I'm being rational when it comes to my position on claims of theism (which defines my atheism), but make no mistake... I'm perfectly capable of holding irrational beliefs that are unrelated to my atheism. And I'm willing to bet that I hold quite a few of them as well. It would surprise me if I didn't. Should I find out which ones, I will try and change my stance on those topics for sure.

There's this idea that atheists are rational people by definition. I disagree with that. An atheist might be rational concerning claims of theism, but he's perfectly capable of believing other types of nonsense for sure.

For example: atheists believing in homeopathy or alien abductions.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I am not convinced that "God" is equal to "pixies". The more we imagine a pixie created the world, the more God like it becomes. The more we imagine God is like a pixie, the less sensible it sounds to call "him" a creator.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

However, I can only go by what I know and experience. And it just happens to be the case that I only and exclusively hear theists make the claim that life would have no meaning (or similar) if there were no gods.

Not that life has no meaning, but that the world is absurd. Check Sartre. We can have subjective meanings and strive accordingly, hence the existentialist *hero*.

Also if the Universe is all there is it is therefore uncaused (there is nothing outsidde it to cause it), and hence random. We can resopnd to this meaningfully, but ultimately its like theres no reason we are here, its just a wierd rabbit and hat trick.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

What about standards of evidence. If strict ones lead to non theism, isnt this like being secure in cautiousness of belief but also risk averse?

And therefore the "will to believe" (an experiment with religion) will always seem like dumbed down philosophy, just like philosophy seems like dumbed down science. But why not experiment with lifestyles of different "epistemic range" to coin a phrase, expecially if evidence for the "higher truths" is always uncertain, ambiguous, and cloudy; and therefore more freely "dispositioned towards" because we are not certain either way (whereas we know that flowers are types of plant, for sure)..

 

[DogmaHunter]

I am not convinced that "God" is equal to "pixies". The more we imagine a pixie created the world, the more God like it becomes. The more we imagine God is like a pixie, the less sensible it sounds to call "him" a creator.

What you are comparing is the contents of the claims about gods and pixies, following how both are defined (without evidence).

That's not how I compare them.
I compare the claims about gods and pixies, in terms of plausability and merrit of those claims.

The nature of the claims is identical.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Foreword: oeps, this turned out a big post... sorry bout that

Not that life has no meaning, but that the world is absurd. Check Sartre. We can have subjective meanings and strive accordingly, hence the existentialist *hero*.

I think you are changing what was being discussed. We were talking about comfort, emotional reaction, purpose, etc as it is related to belief in gods or lack thereof.

You can think the world is absurd in how it works and it seems to me that such an idea would be independent of wheter or not a god had anything to do with it.

The world works the way it does and if that seems absurd to you, it would seem absurd regardless of its origins. Since whatever the origin is, the universe as we know it is the result of that origin.

Also if the Universe is all there is it is therefore uncaused (there is nothing outsidde it to cause it), and hence random.

I can't agree with this at all. I don't see how the first part leads to anything you said after the word "therefor".

The first part also smells like a false dichotomy. It seems you are saying that "either theism is true, or the universe is all there is". Seems like a nonsense claim to me. Why would the universe be "all there is", if gods aren't part of the equation? Why can't it be part of a bigger picture? Like a multi-verse (to name just one example)? And what if this multi-verse has mechanisms in place that inevitably will lead to the creation of space-time continuums like our own? Wouldn't that rule out our universe as being "random"? Since it has to happen at some point in that case?

Off course, the only really correct answer here is "we don't know", since we don't know.

But I'm just saying, it's quite false to try and claim that it's either "gods" or "nothing at all". As if there is no other option imaginable.

We can resopnd to this meaningfully, but ultimately its like theres no reason we are here, its just a wierd rabbit and hat trick.

I agree that there doesn't seem to be a cosmic reason for why we are here. In the sense that we weren't "meant" to exist. The species Homo Sapiens was not "planned" or anything. We are here simply because we happen to be here. There need not be any reason in the sense of "purpose" and "intent" or "planning".

It's like a rock coming down from a cliff. It will follow a certain path, shaped by environmental parameters. It will tumble down, change directions along the way by bumping into things, etc. The path it takes will be entirely environment driven, with the underlying rules of gravity.

There's an uncountable amount of possible / potential paths it could take as well as a place where it might end up on the ground in a specific way (angled, face-up, face-down, etc). The path it will eventually take need not have any reason. It's just how it happened to play out. It wasn't planned. It wasn't determined before hand with intent. It wasn't guided. But it logically HAS to follow a path. One of those practically uncountable potential ways of falling down.

I view our existence in much the same way. Life originated and it evolved, shaped by environmental parameters. These parameters themselves are very much the same as the example of the falling rock. There's no purpose to them, no intent, no cosmic reason. They just happened to be the way they are due to their own causal history (which more then likely is also shaped by its own purposeless causal chain).

So, however the diversity of life looks today, it wasn't planned to look that way. But it would logically turn out in some way. There is no purposefull, intentfull reason why it ended up this way rather then some other way.

In fact, if you have a time machine, go back 500 million years and squash a bug there, you might just as well have broken this causal chain which would prevent Homo Sapiens of ever seeing the light of day.

This fact is not a "weird and rabbit/hat trick" at all. It's pure common sense. It's probabilities. It's like being dealt a bridge hand and ending up with a certain hand rather then some other hand. And there's no reason why you were dealt that hand instead of some other hand.

It's just how it happened to play out.

For me, this makes zero difference. We are here and we can enjoy life, regardless of how it came to be. If tomorrow the origins of the universe are explained, the world would remain exactly the same and my life wouldn't have changed one bit either. Everything that is relevant to me today will continue to be relevant tomorrow.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What about standards of evidence. If strict ones lead to non theism, isnt this like being secure in cautiousness of belief but also risk averse?

I have no reason at all to lower my standards of evidence to make a special case so that I can render religious claims to be "more believable".

I see no reason whatsoever why I would have to hold a double standard and give religion a free pass.

Why would I accomodate religion? Why would I put it in some priviliged spot?

If I lower my standards, I'll do it for everything, not just religion. And very fast will I be forced to pick and choose what to believe because I will end up with contradicting beliefs otherwise.

Because lowering the bar would cause me to believe in christianity, islam, judaism, buddhism, hinduism, viking gods, roman gods, greek gods, etc.
How would I choose between them? "comfort"? "personal preference"? "cultural background"? "geographic convenience"?

I can't do it based on evidence, because of none of them have any. Plust, I lowered my standards, putting them all on equal footing. So what now?

That's not all off course. Using the same standards, I would now have to believe:
- elvis lives
- aliens abduct people and perform sexual experiments on them
- the guy in room 2452 is NOT psychotic and actually IS the reincarnation of Napoleon
- bigfoot exists
- lochness monster
- the world is 6000 years old
- the world is 10000 years old
- the world is 4.6 billion years old
- astrology
- homeopathy
- crystal healing
- faith healing
- reincarnation
- .........


No, thanks. I prefer consistency in my beliefs.

 

[KCfromNC]

I think in modal logic it is possible you never wrote it, even if you did

Then according to that understanding of modal logic it is possible I'm not writing this response even as I am in the middle of writing it. I guess there's no point in me responding.

Meanwhile, back here in reality thank goodness this stuff isn't used for anything except making up nonsense which help people rationalize their religious beliefs.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think you are changing what was being discussed. We were talking about comfort, emotional reaction, purpose, etc as it is related to belief in gods or lack thereof.

I think we all have invested emotion in what we believe, its like a cognitive glue.

You can think the world is absurd in how it works and it seems to me that such an idea would be independent of wheter or not a god had anything to do with it.

Well yes if "everything" (including God) is all there is, it has not cause, therefore everything is absurd, God included. In the sense of it has no ultimate reason for being there.


Unless thats to commiit the fallacy of division (meaning the property of the whole is falsely seen as therefore belonging to the parts in isolation also).

If you still dont get the uncaused bit. (U) <-thats all there is by defintion. If it exists its in there. Now, theres no possibility of there being an outside of it, so therefore it has no cause. Get it?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

What you are comparing is the contents of the claims about gods and pixies, following how both are defined (without evidence).

That's not how I compare them.
I compare the claims about gods and pixies, in terms of plausability and merrit of those claims.

The nature of the claims is identical.

A bit ambigouos but I agree in general. But you use science as your epistemic standard, so therefore rule out a lot of theology and paranormality, or not? (oops see next post).

 

[GrowingSmaller]

- .........


No, thanks. I prefer consistency in my beliefs.

Sound. I guess we have different personalities, I haeve probably experimanted with many of belief systems you recounted.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well yes if "everything" (including God) is all there is, it has not cause, therefore everything is absurd, God included. In the sense of it has no ultimate reason for being there.

I don't get how you got from "no cause" to "therefor, absurd".
Furthermore, I think labelling something as "absurd" due to lack of knowledge is what I would call absurd.

If you still dont get the uncaused bit. (U) <-thats all there is by defintion. If it exists its in there. Now, theres no possibility of there being an outside of it, so therefore it has no cause. Get it?

Actually, no, I don't get it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

A bit ambigouos but I agree in general. But you use science as your epistemic standard, so therefore rule out a lot of theology and paranormality, or not? (oops see next post).

Theology and paranormality are not proper epistemic standards.

Yes, scientific principles to me is how we know things. And I do say "principles". It's not like we need to publish papers in peer reviewed journals for just about anything. But the principles are absolutely fundamental.

Empiricism, if you wish.

 

[True Scotsman]

I had a "NDE" once, in a car and a saw (hallucinated?) the grim reaper hovering by in the mist. The very next instant the car was nearly obliterated by an until then unseen (in the conscious mind at least) truck hurtling carelessly up the motorway. It luckily brushed by.

Ok theres an natural explanation: cultural expectations forming the basis of the vision, subliminal awareness of the oncoming truck, projection of the "reaper" by unconsicous processes.

But it still seems uncanny to me that such things were all so neatly correlated. A non scientific explanation is it was the angel of death. Stuff like that has left me open to religious interpretations, and until you perhaps experience from the "inside" you may only have "theoretical knowledge" rather than "knowledge by acquaintance". A bit like the Marys room scenario, but with religious visions rather than ordinary experiences.

So maybe the God idea excites me, it is a key to the mystery, a benign force that I can hope in and look to with trust - in an otherwise randomised and "absurd" (to borrow a hint of existentialism) multiverse. You may say that appeal to unpleasant consequences doesnt disprove an idea, though.

But if there is just no reason for all this, excepting the unfloding mechanics of the big computer which floats in hyperspace and has no cause, it kind of saps some of the energy which makes - or can make, depending on personality etc - life enjoyable.

Perhaps thats part of the function of a "God instinct" - it reliably prevents existentialist blues and the greywashing of experience by reason?

I had a conversation with the grim reaper in the middle of the night when I was 21 years old. It was standing in a dark doorway with sickle and everything. It was as real as any other experience I ever had. It turned out I was having a bad reaction to an antibiotic medicine I was taking.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I don't get how you got from "no cause" to "therefor, absurd".
Furthermore, I think labelling something as "absurd" due to lack of knowledge is what I would call absurd.



Actually, no, I don't get it.

Absurd means without reason (IIRC), so if there is no cause there is no reason.

Now secondly to try to restate the argument,

STEP1: take "everything" (call it a multiverse if you want).


STEP 2: Then try and find something to cause it, and it will either be inside the multiverse, and therefore not a true cause of it because it would be part of it already existing; just like you cant call a whistle the cause of a kettle...


STEP 3: or it would be outside of the multiverse, but that is not possible because we have taken it to mean "everything".

So its a dilemma, either the cause is within (step 2) or it's non existent (step 3). The first option (step 2) is not a true cause of everything, therefore such a cause is non existent (step 3 (by RAA - reductio bsurdum, ie the opposite option doesnt make proper sense)).

The dichotomy is valid a priori (either within or without) and there is only one logical or rational option.

Now, do we need science to prove this point, or is empiricism not needed?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I had a conversation with the grim reaper in the middle of the night when I was 21 years old. It was standing in a dark doorway with sickle and everything. It was as real as any other experience I ever had. It turned out I was having a bad reaction to an antibiotic medicine I was taking.

Its an ambiguous phenomenoin to me. It could be a "mystical NDE" or , you could be testing my credulity, or it could be a plain old hallucination (I am not an expert in any of those areas). I dont see any default option, its a mysterious world (we dont know everything).

 

[DogmaHunter]

Absurd means without reason (IIRC), so if there is no cause there is no reason.

Ow, okay.
However, the reverse isn't necessarily true either. If there is a cause, it need not have a reason either.

I'ld also like to point out here that "reason" can be understood in different ways.

One can say that the "reason" we exist is the evolutionary path of our ancestors. That's a "reason" in the sense of causality, circumstances and the mechanism by which it happened. It's not a "reason" in terms of purpose and intent.

Now secondly, take "everything" (call it a multiverse if you want).

Then try and find something to cause it, and it will either be inside the multiverse, and therefore not a true cause of it because it would be part of it already existing; or it would be outside of the multiverse, but that is not possible because we have taken it to mean "everything".

Well, if "all that exists" means "all that exists" then yes, nothing else but "all" exists. Seems obvious.

So its a dilemma, either within or non existent.

I don't see how it is a delimma.

The first is not a true cause of everything, therefore such a cause is non existent (by RAA - reductio bsurdum, ie the opposite option doesnt make proper sense).

I'ld propose at this point that the word "cause" might not be a proper word to use for the origins of a space-time continuum.

Now, do we need science to prove this point, or is empiricism not needed?

I think I disagree that you have a point.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I was reading up on paragmatism as a way other than realism and anti-realism, and it was mentioned that anti realists accuse the (scientific) realists of replacing the authoritarianism and claims for objectivirty of the Church, displacing one system (religion) with another (science) but keeping the same "we have THE TRUTH" style of attitude.

Thoughts?