Weak argument for God (persuasive)

[Gottservant]

Hi there,

So I was thinking, people are naturalists, they expect things to conform to the laws of nature (even long before they think of a reason for them to) and there is belief in God. What if these two things could be harmonized?

The argument goes like this: there is belief in God, there is the law of the conservation of energy, you don't know that there isn't a God, but believing there isn't necessitates forgetting that God may exist, forgetting that God may exist necessitates a belief being destroyed THEREFORE it is better to believe in God that the belief may not be destroyed because the law of the conservation of energy would cause us to suffer for that destroyed belief if we did not.

The argument makes more sense if you consider that actually it is a sin not to utilitize everything for the glory of God, in the sense that the less that you allow to be destroyed because of the conservation even of entropy, the better. The argument makes less sense if you consider that lots of things are created and destroyed all the time and its unrealistic to think that you won't waste any of it, with the small caveat that not wasting it is at least "a nice idea".

I think the fact that you can view it either way, either more broadly or more narrowly points to the fact that it is a real argument, because it gives you a choice, are you going to start valuing your life in the Name of God, even if it seems like it is a trivial belief, or are you going to treat everything as a waste, precisely because that which should matter most, still doesn't seem to matter enough.

I hope you see the simplicity of it, all that it requires is that you trust your conscience not to waste the opportunity that believing in God presents. I realize this is still too childish for some, but then I am not trying to please everybody, am I?

The argument that you would perhaps save someone else's life or just give to charity because you were determined not to waste this life is perhaps a sidenote (for now), but it is at least not out of the question.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

The argument goes like this: there is belief in God, there is the law of the conservation of energy, you don't know that there isn't a God, but believing there isn't necessitates forgetting that God may exist, forgetting that God may exist necessitates a belief being destroyed THEREFORE it is better to believe in God that the belief may not be destroyed because the law of the conservation of energy would cause us to suffer for that destroyed belief if we did not.

No.

If everyone on Earth stopped believing in God, no matter or energy would be destroyed. The law of conservation would not be affected.

Also, believing that there is no God does not necessitate forgeting that God may exist. I know God may exist; I just believe it doesn't.

 

[Gottservant]

Then you are denying your conscience.

If people stopped believing in God, the belief would be destroyed, as I said, I would have thought that was fairly obvious.

The problem is you are suggesting that you can ignore the belief as if there are no consequences, but as long as you are expecting to destroy the belief in the end, your hope in beliefs in general is eroded.

The reality is, you are fighting belief in God, you are trying to put it into a position where you can deny it outright and if you are really truthful with yourself, you can't.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

If people stopped believing in God, the belief would be destroyed, as I said, I would have thought that was fairly obvious.

The belief would be "destroyed," but no matter or energy would be. Invoking the law of conservation here makes no sense.

The problem is you are suggesting that you can ignore the belief as if there are no consequences, but as long as you are expecting to destroy the belief in the end, your hope in beliefs in general is eroded.

If I understand what this sentence is saying (and that's a big "if"), it actually isn't a problem.

The reality is, you are fighting belief in God, you are trying to put it into a position where you can deny it outright and if you are really truthful with yourself, you can't.

Is there any really part of you that thinks this line of argument can be convincing? That you can pretend to know what's going on inside my head better than I do and I'm not going to notice how wrong you are?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

The reality is, you are fighting belief in God, you are trying to put it into a position where you can deny it outright and if you are really truthful with yourself, you can't.

This assertion falls flat on its face from the outset. It is predicated on the content of my thoughts. Only one of us has access to that information - me. I am therefor in the position to know, with 100% certainty, that your argument is false, as is any atheist with functioning cognitive faculties.

Any other crappy, self-refuting arguments you care to make on behalf of your faith?

 

[variant]

Hi there,

So I was thinking, people are naturalists, they expect things to conform to the laws of nature (even long before they think of a reason for them to) and there is belief in God. What if these two things could be harmonized?

The argument goes like this: there is belief in God, there is the law of the conservation of energy, you don't know that there isn't a God, but believing there isn't necessitates forgetting that God may exist, forgetting that God may exist necessitates a belief being destroyed THEREFORE it is better to believe in God that the belief may not be destroyed because the law of the conservation of energy would cause us to suffer for that destroyed belief if we did not.

The law of conservation of energy doesn't read like this it states that energy can neither be crated or destroyed.

Energy is free to change form and thus beliefs, a specific form of energy, are free to be changed.

The belief in God should stand on it's merits not pseudoscience.

 

[Gottservant]

Yet who here grows, without first conceding to the laws of physics?

 

[variant]

Yet who here grows, without first conceding to the laws of physics?

How is that a response to what I said though?

 

[Eudaimonist]

The argument goes like this: there is belief in God, there is the law of the conservation of energy, you don't know that there isn't a God, but believing there isn't necessitates forgetting that God may exist, forgetting that God may exist necessitates a belief being destroyed THEREFORE it is better to believe in God that the belief may not be destroyed because the law of the conservation of energy would cause us to suffer for that destroyed belief if we did not.

This makes no scientific sense whatsoever.

I really don't know what to say in response except that energy conservation laws will not "cause us to suffer" for not believing in God any more than for not believing in Cthulhu, which is to say, not at all.

If you think there is some physics penalty, what is it?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gottservant]

if its true its self-fulfilling

if its self-fulfilling it can't be destroyed

if it can't be destroyed and you try to destroy it, you suffer

that's all I meant

 

[Gottservant]

How is that a response to what I said though?

Well, you all say "the argument is rubbish, it doesn't work like that"

but obviously we are affected by the laws of physics somehow and you are not saying how

so you haven't really responded, you've said I should respect your opinion even if it contains zero content

do me a favour and work out if you know anything that would suggest that even though the conservation of energy does affect belief, since it must, it does so in a context that makes it irrelevant

 

[Eudaimonist]

if its true its self-fulfilling

if its self-fulfilling it can't be destroyed

if it can't be destroyed and you try to destroy it, you suffer

that's all I meant

Suffer how?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

if its true its self-fulfilling

if its self-fulfilling it can't be destroyed

if it can't be destroyed and you try to destroy it, you suffer

that's all I meant

That means less than nothing.

Well, you all say "the argument is rubbish, it doesn't work like that"

but obviously we are affected by the laws of physics somehow and you are not saying how

so you haven't really responded, you've said I should respect your opinion even if it contains zero content

do me a favour and work out if you know anything that would suggest that even though the conservation of energy does affect belief, since it must, it does so in a context that makes it irrelevant

You have no clue what you're talking about.

 

[variant]

Well, you all say "the argument is rubbish, it doesn't work like that"

but obviously we are affected by the laws of physics somehow and you are not saying how

I tried to explain clearly to you that the law of conservation of energy would not apply because the energy for the ideas doesn't go away it just changes form.

so you haven't really responded, you've said I should respect your opinion even if it contains zero content

Except fundamentally and fatally damaging the key premise for your argument.

do me a favour and work out if you know anything that would suggest that even though the conservation of energy does affect belief, since it must, it does so in a context that makes it irrelevant

It effects the total energy in the system, specific beliefs don't have to be conserved. The idea you are proffering is ludicrous.

You don't seem to understand the physics here at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

Read up and tell me how and why any idea needs to be conserved.

 

[Gottservant]

Suffer how?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Because you try to do the impossible when its impossible?

You honestly can't work that out from what I said?

 

[variant]

Because you try to do the impossible when its impossible?

You honestly can't work that out from what I said?

It is impossible not to believe in God?

Odd line of thinking. One wonders how you could possibly justify it. Certainly not with that pseudoscientific drivel from earlier.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Because you try to do the impossible when its impossible?

You honestly can't work that out from what I said?

Suffer how? In what way would someone suffer? Perhaps an example would help.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gottservant]

If I know a rock is going to roll to the bottom of a hill and I say "but if I stand at the bottom of the hill, it will no longer be empty" that doesn't stop me from getting crushed by the rock when it gets there

the same is true of the conservation of energy, if enough entropy leads to the conservation of energy and I stand there and say "but if I don't believe it, so belief being destroyed is irrelevant" that doesn't mean that when the belief is destroyed I won't suffer

its just a simple fact, eventually you will realize that when you had God, you had something

 

[BL2KTN]

When you "had" God, you had a pattern of neurological structures within your brain. Changing that belief doesn't remove that pattern, it just adds higher hierarchical, neurological structures to recognize the prior learned pattern is perceived as falsified. It doesn't violate any scientific laws any more than changing your belief about Santa Claus.

 

[Gottservant]

closer to the truth, but still not the truth

the fact is you actually have to believe it even when you falsify, because otherwise you would be falsifying nothing

the fact that you don't want to falsify nothing means the belief is worth something and the fact that it is worth something means you keep wanting to believe it and the fact that you keep wanting to believe it means that it is true

so whatever you falsify, you certainly don't falsify everything