Why does God leave no tracks?

[cloudyday2]

Peter1000's logic seems to be this:

1. Observe that earth harbors life
2. Observe that there are trillions upon trillions of planets in the universe
3. Assume that none of them harbor life
4. Conclude that the chances of life coming about naturally are essentially zero

Even if Earth is the only haven for life in the entire universe, there is no reason to conclude that God created life on Earth. On the other hand, if we discover that life is much more common and elegant throughout the universe than natural evolution predicts, then we might have a case for God (or ancient aliens or whatever).

 

[Crandaddy]

Thanks, @Crandaddy , those are some good thoughts for me to think about.

Here is a webpage with some quotes that I like about knowing God. Take a look if you have time.

http://www.pravmir.com/the-science-of-sciences/

Actually, now that I see this, I think I might have misunderstood you. It now seems that the tracks of special revelation might be what you're looking for after all...

Have you discussed this with any clergy? I think that might be the next step you should take, if you haven't already. Feel free to PM me if you'd like to continue our discussion in private.

 

[Crandaddy]

And don't forget parsimony.

Sure. But the more parsimonious explanations tend to be the more plausible ones, don't they?

Reformed Epistemology does seem to have all the earmarks of special pleading.

From the wiki page: "[A common objection to reformed epistemology], the Great Pumpkin Objection states that Reformed epistemology is so liberal that it allows belief in any sort of far-fetched entity to be justified as simply foundational or basic. Someone might, for example, take as basic the belief that The Great Pumpkin is all-powerful, just as the Reformed epistemologist takes a similar belief in God as basic."

But the Great Pumpkin Objection doesn't take into account Alvin Plantinga's notion of warrant, which is of central importance to his account of properly basic belief.

In Warranted Christian Belief, he offers this brief explanation of his idea of warrant:

“[A] belief has warrant for a person S only if that belief is produced in S by cognitive faculties functioning properly (subject to no dysfunction) in a cognitive environment that is appropriate for S’s kind of cognitive faculties, according to a design plan that is successfully aimed at truth.”

Of course, this by itself isn't sufficient to establish that belief in God is properly basic, but I think it does put to bed the charge that at least Plantinga's brand of Reformed Epistemology (hereafter RE) throws open the floodgates to allow that any set of wild and crazy beliefs can count as properly basic.

My own chief problem with RE is that I can't see how one can form a veridical God-belief that can have any ties to the world of everyday experience without there being some evidential link between the two. I'm not even sure what the content of a God-belief could be that just spontaneously manifests in the absence of any evidential basis whatsoever.

As I do. Evidence that the human mind is capable of deceiving itself.

So you think that all cases of religious experience are self-deception? Why?

Self-deception can also give you that.

Well, agree to disagree, I suppose.

 

[cloudyday2]

Actually, now that I see this, I think I might have misunderstood you. It now seems that the tracks of special revelation might be what you're looking for after all...

Have you discussed this with any clergy? I think that might be the next step you should take, if you haven't already. Feel free to PM me if you'd like to continue our discussion in private.

Thanks, @Crandaddy , I'm not sure what kind of tracks I seek. Apparently I hallucinate sometimes, so that makes a lot of my personal observations questionable. If I could trust my personal observations, then I would have some tracks - maybe not Christian God tracks, but some kind of tracks. Unfortunately, I can't trust my personal observations, and I must question the personal observations of others for the same reason (i.e. these people might hallucinate sometimes also). So I look for what tracks God might have left that can be observed through more objective means, and I don't see much. I have the same problem with ESP, psi, etc. I observe it sometimes in my own experiences, but science can never verify that it exists. The experiments never are conclusive.

 

[Peter1000]

If this works for you, knock yourself out.

This works for me and this is a very simple example, there are many more complex ratios and systems that science has no idea about how they came about that prove to be excellent tracks right back to an intelligent being with the knowledge to organize and boot up systems like our universe and solar system and our earth.

One day science and God will be the same person.

 

[Peter1000]

Peter1000's logic seems to be this:

1. Observe that earth harbors life
2. Observe that there are trillions upon trillions of planets in the universe
3. Assume that none of them harbor life
4. Conclude that the chances of life coming about naturally are essentially zero

You make a good case for me. If there are trillions X trillions of planets and only 1 of them harbors life, you should be looking beyond a scientific explanation because chance is out of the question. That's all science has to explain anything is: what is the "chance" (1 / trillions X trillions) that earth came about "naturally"? The answer is 0.

If the word "alien" covers an intelligent being that has the knowledge to organize and boot up systems, then I can go with that. "Alien" would not work if the alien only showed up on the existing planet earth and flourished amoung earth's tremendous resources.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Peter1000's logic seems to be this:

1. Observe that earth harbors life
2. Observe that there are trillions upon trillions of planets in the universe
3. Assume that none of them harbor life
4. Conclude that the chances of life coming about naturally are essentially zero

You make a good case for me. If there are trillions X trillions of planets and only 1 of them harbors life, you should be looking beyond a scientific explanation because chance is out of the question. That's all science has to explain anything is: what is the "chance" (1 / trillions X trillions) that earth came about "naturally"? The answer is 0.

If the word "alien" covers an intelligent being that has the knowledge to organize and boot up systems, then I can go with that. "Alien" would not work if the alien only showed up on the existing planet earth and flourished amoung earth's tremendous resources.

Wow...

 

[Peter1000]

I did not ask for speculation.

Yet it is not zero.

<citation missing>

I did not see the math and data that I asked for.

Unevidenced assertion.

You have not yet produced a scientific probability model that substantiates your opinion.

That is a [fallacious] false dichotomy. There may be options we are not aware of, and there is always "we don't know".

Unevidenced assertion.

Address the question: Why would an allegedly all-powerful-all-knowing universe-creating-thing need to bother with such details? Could it not have us living on the surface of the Sun?

The only 'intelligence' that I am aware of is the product of a brain. What does your god use for a brain, prior to emergence and evolution of organisms with central nervous systems?

What did this "being" breathe prior to the existence of oxygen?

Like a perpetual motion machine, but better?

What was his brain made of?

How did this 'flesh and bone' body survive in the cold of space, prior to the formation of the Earth?

How do you know this?

Define "spirit".

It is not me that is caught up in all of these details. I will not take any of this on 'faith'.

Who is this "we that you speak for?

I do not have 'faith' in science.

I am ignostic on the topic of "god".

This statement is incoherent. Science is a methodology, not a person. I do not pretend to know what gods are.

Davian says:
I did not ask for speculation.

I did not speculate. 1 / a very large number = a very low number, one that gets very very close to 0
The probability is very near 0. A reasonable possibility is 0.

Davian:
Unevidenced assertion.

You are practically drowning in scientific evidence, but you refuse to acknowledge. The one simple piece of evidence I sited: How did earth come to be in the perfect spot and stay in a perfect orbit around our sun? Science has no idea, except "natural chance". I reject that because it is like rolling a 6 sided dice 50 times and rolling 4 every time. The probability is near 0, but not 0. The reasonable possibility, however, is 0.

Davian:
That is a [fallacious] false dichotomy. There may be options we are not aware of, and there is always "we don't know".

It is only a fallacious false dichotomy to a non-believer. For me, a believer, there are 2 options that we are aware of. Yes, there could be an option we are not aware of, and when we are aware of another option, then we will process that knowledge. "we don't know", is not an option, because we are aware of at least 2 options, 1) pure chance, 2) intelligent being.

Davian:
The only 'intelligence' that I am aware of is the product of a brain. What does your god use for a brain, prior to emergence and evolution of organisms with central nervous systems?

God has a highly advanced brain. It is far more advanced than your brain, but a brain, nonetheless. His brain is more advanced than your brain as your brain is more advanced than the nucleus of a one-celled amoeba.

"prior to emergence and evolution of organisms with central nervous systems"? No emergence or evolution of organisms with central nervous systems. Organisms with central nervous systems came fully equiped with their systems. The fossil record will back me up on this.

Find me a pre-central nervous systems animal and then find me an animal with a central nervous system and then find me all the myriad of tweeners from 0 to fully functional nervous systems in the fossil record. Again, it is 0.

Davian:
What did this "being" breathe prior to the existence of oxygen?

The key to this question is: oxygen has always existed, even as long as God has existed.

Davian:
How did this 'flesh and bone' body survive in the cold of space, prior to the formation of the Earth?

The key to this question is: how does God's flesh and bone and spirit body survive the cold of space today, since it is the same as prior to earth? The answer is His resurrected body of flesh and bone and spirit is a highly advanced system. It is also highly mobile. His body is as far advanced above your body, as your body is as far advanced above a one-celled amoeba. IOW the cold of space = no problem for God and His body.

Davian:
How do you know this?

Because men in this age have seen Him and have talked to Him and He gave them information about His Person. Prophets of God, through all ages, have seen Him and talked with Him, even face to face. Some of that conversation was about his nature. One of the key elements about God that has been lost for centuries is that He is a man, like us, except far more advanced than we are at this point, but if we do what He tells us to do, we can some day be like Him, in all ways. It is truly an exciting doctrine. Look into it.

Davian:
Define "spirit".

Spirit is "refined matter". Every person has a spirit within them. Every spirit houses a persons mind and will (Mormons call the mind/will our "intelligence".) So every person is made up of an intelligence, housed within a spirit, the spirit is housed within our flesh and bone body. This is what we call the soul of man: the spirit (including our intelligence) + the flesh and bone body.

Davian:
I am ignostic on the topic of "god".

You cannot go out your door and see an ant on the ground without thinking about God. Look around you, God's fingerprints are on everything. Study the "constants" that exist in the universe and they leave a track straight to an intelligent being, not a chance natural happening.

Davian:
This statement is incoherent. Science is a methodology, not a person. I do not pretend to know what gods are.

Massage it a little and use your imagination. Of course science is not 1 person, so let me put it this way: some day the men of science and God will agree 100% on how everything rolled into existence and continues to exist through the eternities. It is a fabulous, never-ending study.

 

[Hoghead1]

Peter 1000, I like to think of the universe as the body of God. I don't know any other metaphor that does justice to God's great intimacy and sensitivity to all things. I thin the universe is best thought of as an organism. Now a complex organism always has a brain. Hence, we can speak of God as the brain of the universe.

 

[Davian]

Sure. But the more parsimonious explanations tend to be the more plausible ones, don't they?

Not necessarily. Think of the orbit of Mercury. When Newtonian physics failed to explain its orbit, the most plausible explanation was [adding] the existence of a yet-undetected planet (Vulcan) or dust field. Turns out, space is warped.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/the-200-year-old-mystery-of-mercurys-orbit-solved-1458642219

But the Great Pumpkin Objection doesn't take into account Alvin Plantinga's notion of warrant, which is of central importance to his account of properly basic belief.

In Warranted Christian Belief, he offers this brief explanation of his idea of warrant:

“[A] belief has warrant for a person S only if that belief is produced in S by cognitive faculties functioning properly (subject to no dysfunction) in a cognitive environment that is appropriate for S’s kind of cognitive faculties, according to a design plan that is successfully aimed at truth.”

Of course, this by itself isn't sufficient to establish that belief in God is properly basic,

This presumes 1) that one can only believe false things if one's faculties are not functioning properly; If this were the case, taking into account all of the religions, sects, and denominations around the world, one would have to decare virtually everyone else in the world - other than you and your religious group, of course - to be mentally deficient. That is certainly not my position, as I think that a healthy, normal brain is capable of believing all sorts of ridiculous things.

and 2) that the 'design plan' of human cognitive faculties is successfully aimed at truth, when, from an evolutionary standpoint, it need only be accurate enough for us, as a group, to successfully raise the next generation to breeding age. That we can do any better than that (iPods, Disneyland, the Internet) may be quite impressive to our ancestors, but I don't see that as being able to discern truths about the world without some sort of strict independently verifiable methodology.

but I think it does put to bed the charge that at least Plantinga's brand of Reformed Epistemology (hereafter RE) throws open the floodgates to allow that any set of wild and crazy beliefs can count as properly basic.

Welcome Great Pumpkin

• Davian
• Jan 3, 2016

My own chief problem with RE is that I can't see how one can form a veridical God-belief that can have any ties to the world of everyday experience without there being some evidential link between the two. I'm not even sure what the content of a God-belief could be that just spontaneously manifests in the absence of any evidential basis whatsoever.

Indeed. As an ignostic, I would take another step back and say, what do you mean by "God"?

So you think that all cases of religious experience are self-deception? Why?

That is not what I meant to say by that comment, but given the mutually exclusive nature of religions, that would summarize what I think about them, as they cannot all be right. And, there is the possibility that they may all be wrong.

As they cannot all be right, it follows that one must accept that the human brain is capable of religious experiences in the absence of real, external [insert reference to relevant god/s/spirits/supernatural] source.

Unless, as I have seen it countered in these forums, you declare everyone that disagrees with your religion to be liars.

Well, agree to disagree, I suppose.

Granting for a moment the existence of a god that is able to provide this feeling of “special revelation” that you speak of:

We observe two individuals, Theist A, and Theist B. Both want to believe, both study their bibles, and both participate in all the trappings of the associated religion.

Theist A somehow achieves this “special revelation” that you speak of. However, Theist B only manages to convince themselves of achieving this goal, in the self-deceiving manner of those that have religious experiences in those [for the purposes of this hypothetical] false regions.

Now, how do you and I tell the difference between the two? It's not like the one that has the "real" experience can demonstrate that he has an actual relationship with his god.

And, I know of no criteria by which we could prove the experiences of Theist B to be false, do you?

If what happened to Theist B can explain the experiences for both A and B, while you may disagree with my conclusion, you should consider it as a possibility.

 

[Davian]

Davian says:
I did not ask for speculation.

I did not speculate. 1 / a very large number = a very low number, one that gets very very close to 0
The probability is very near 0. A reasonable possibility is 0.

Speculation. I asked for actual data. How many star/planet systems did you actually check?

Davian:
Unevidenced assertion.

You are practically drowning in scientific evidence, but you refuse to acknowledge. The one simple piece of evidence I sited: How did earth come to be in the perfect spot and stay in a perfect orbit around our sun? Science has no idea, except "natural chance".

<citation missing>

I reject that because it is like rolling a 6 sided dice 50 times and rolling 4 every time. The probability is near 0, but not 0. The reasonable possibility, however, is 0.

Speculation.

Davian:
That is a [fallacious] false dichotomy. There may be options we are not aware of, and there is always "we don't know".

It is only a fallacious false dichotomy to a non-believer. For me, <snip>

I don't care what it looks like through your god-goggles. It is still a false dichotomy.

Davian:
The only 'intelligence' that I am aware of is the product of a brain. What does your god use for a brain, prior to emergence and evolution of organisms with central nervous systems?

God has a highly advanced brain. It is far more advanced than your brain, but a brain, nonetheless. His brain is more advanced than your brain as your brain is more advanced than the nucleus of a one-celled amoeba.

That is not what I asked. What does your god use for a brain, as in, what is it made of, where is it?

"prior to emergence and evolution of organisms with central nervous systems"? No emergence or evolution of organisms with central nervous systems. Organisms with central nervous systems came fully equiped with their systems.

<citation missing>

The fossil record will back me up on this.

<citation missing>

Find me a pre-central nervous systems animal and then find me an animal with a central nervous system and then find me all the myriad of tweeners from 0 to fully functional nervous systems in the fossil record. Again, it is 0.

Classic attempt to shirk your burden of evidence.

Davian:
What did this "being" breathe prior to the existence of oxygen?

The key to this question is: oxygen has always existed, even as long as God has existed.

<citation missing>

Davian:
How did this 'flesh and bone' body survive in the cold of space, prior to the formation of the Earth?

The key to this question is: how does God's flesh and bone and spirit body survive the cold of space today, since it is the same as prior to earth? The answer is His resurrected body of flesh and bone and spirit is a highly advanced system. It is also highly mobile. His body is as far advanced above your body, as your body is as far advanced above a one-celled amoeba. IOW the cold of space = no problem for God and His body.

Does it also have jet packs, so it can zoom around to where He needs to go?

Davian:
How do you know this?

Because men in this age have seen Him and have talked to Him and He gave them information about His Person. Prophets of God, through all ages, have seen Him and talked with Him, even face to face. Some of that conversation was about his nature. One of the key elements about God that has been lost for centuries is that He is a man, like us, except far more advanced than we are at this point, but if we do what He tells us to do, we can some day be like Him, in all ways. It is truly an exciting doctrine. Look into it.

Does he talk to you? Do you hear voices?

Davian:
Define "spirit".

Spirit is "refined matter". Every person has a spirit within them. Every spirit houses a persons mind and will (Mormons call the mind/will our "intelligence".) So every person is made up of an intelligence, housed within a spirit, the spirit is housed within our flesh and bone body. This is what we call the soul of man: the spirit (including our intelligence) + the flesh and bone body.

How we test your hypothesis? How do you show it to be there?

Davian:
I am ignostic on the topic of "god".

You cannot go out your door and see an ant on the ground without thinking about God.

I do it all the time. I only think about gods when I come here to this forum.

Look around you, God's fingerprints are on everything.

Yet only believers see these alleged fingerprints. It must the god-goggles.

Study the "constants" that exist in the universe and they leave a track straight to an intelligent being,

<citation missing>

not a chance natural happening.

and not a god that created the world in a genesis-flavoured-miracle-by-miracle type creation event 6000 years ago. That kind of god would actually be messing with constants to make things happen, as it could have us living on the surface of the Sun if it wanted.

ID is an argument against biblical-type gods.

Davian:
This statement is incoherent. Science is a methodology, not a person. I do not pretend to know what gods are.

Massage it a little and use your imagination.

What I can imagine has no bearing on reality.

Of course science is not 1 person, so let me put it this way: some day the men of science and God will agree 100% on how everything rolled into existence and continues to exist through the eternities. It is a fabulous, never-ending study fantasy.

Fixed it for you.

 

[Crandaddy]

This presumes 1) that one can only believe false things if one's faculties are not functioning properly; If this were the case, taking into account all of the religions, sects, and denominations around the world, one would have to decare virtually everyone else in the world - other than you and your religious group, of course - to be mentally deficient. That is certainly not my position,

I think you should read that account of warrant a bit more carefully. Proper function is only one of the ingredients necessary for a belief to have warrant. The other is that one's faculties function “in a cognitive environment that is appropriate for S's kind of cognitive faculties.”

as I think that a healthy, normal brain is capable of believing all sorts of ridiculous things.

Yes, I'm inclined to agree with you there.

and 2) that the 'design plan' of human cognitive faculties is successfully aimed at truth, when, from an evolutionary standpoint, it need only be accurate enough for us, as a group, to successfully raise the next generation to breeding age.

Actually, from an evolutionary standpoint, I don't think they need be accurate even that much -- or at all, really. All evolution is “concerned” with is that an organism behave in the requisite manner to survive and reproduce. It seems to me that having cognitive faculties successfully aimed at truth as such would be completely invisible to natural selection. I actually think this counts as evidence in favor of theism, because whereas evolution would “select” for cognitive faculties successfully aimed at truth only as a means to producing behaviors conducive to survival and reproduction, if God exists, then I think it would be reasonable to suppose that he might want to create beings who have the ability to think and reason to truth.

That we can do any better than that (iPods, Disneyland, the Internet) may be quite impressive to our ancestors, but I don't see that as being able to discern truths about the world without some sort of strict independently verifiable methodology.

I'm not sure that I follow you here. What sort of “independently verifiable methodology” are you referring to? Wouldn't cognitive faculties successfully aimed at truth be required to successfully utilize such a methodology?

Welcome Great Pumpkin

• Davian
• Jan 3, 2016

But I don't think Plantinga is trying to persuade everyone to accept the view that belief in his God is properly basic. I think he's taking the less ambitious route of arguing that if his God were to exist, then it would be reasonable to suppose that belief in his God is properly basic. As long as we operate within that assumption, then I don't see how Great Pumpkin does damage to his position.

Indeed. As an ignostic, I would take another step back and say, what do you mean by "God"?

Well, that is the trick, isn't it? I have attempted to explain it on these forums before, but I seem only thus far to have managed to produce confusion. It is a highly-abstract concept, and thus not the easiest to communicate...

Take any set of true statements that contain an existential verb you like -- any at all: Davian exists; Barack Obama is human; two and two added together is four; necessarily, all triangles are trilateral, etc. Now isolate those existential verbs: exists, is, are, etc. I take it that the existential principle those verbs signify is the most fundamental principle that everything in all of reality shares in common with everything else, as there is nothing more fundamental to any thing at all that exists in any way whatsoever than its existence. It is because existence, or to exist, is so ubiquitous and so fundamental a principle amongst all beings of every kind that classical theists like myself identify it with the essential nature of God -- although not as a constitutive principle, as in beings other than God; but pure, absolute, unmingled, and unlimited. In other words, God's nature is simply, absolutely to be.

If you're interested, I think this is a pretty good primer on this particular subject.

That is not what I meant to say by that comment, but given the mutually exclusive nature of religions, that would summarize what I think about them, as they cannot all be right. And, there is the possibility that they may all be wrong.

As they cannot all be right, it follows that one must accept that the human brain is capable of religious experiences in the absence of real, external [insert reference to relevant god/s/spirits/supernatural] source.

But I don't think being 100% right or 100% wrong are the only possibilities for a religion. Maybe there's a spectrum of being closer to orthodoxy or further from it, and maybe no religions are 100% wrong. So I don't have a problem with persons who have different beliefs than my own having genuine religious experiences. If those experiences don't guide them all the way to 100% orthodoxy, then maybe they guide them just a little closer to it. I'm perfectly fine with that.

Unless, as I have seen it countered in these forums, you declare everyone that disagrees with your religion to be liars.

Nope, that ain't me.

Granting for a moment the existence of a god that is able to provide this feeling of “special revelation” that you speak of:

We observe two individuals, Theist A, and Theist B. Both want to believe, both study their bibles, and both participate in all the trappings of the associated religion.

Theist A somehow achieves this “special revelation” that you speak of. However, Theist B only manages to convince themselves of achieving this goal, in the self-deceiving manner of those that have religious experiences in those [for the purposes of this hypothetical] false regions.

Now, how do you and I tell the difference between the two? It's not like the one that has the "real" experience can demonstrate that he has an actual relationship with his god.

And, I know of no criteria by which we could prove the experiences of Theist B to be false, do you?

If what happened to Theist B can explain the experiences for both A and B, while you may disagree with my conclusion, you should consider it as a possibility.

I actually have trouble with the way this thought experiment is framed from the very outset. I take it that Theist B has had an experience that falls in line with what we call “religious experience,” and that said experience has had some sort of positive effect on his/her life. Why can't these alone suffice to constitute a genuine religious experience? I don't see why not, so I don't see any reason why we should say that Theist B has had a false religious experience.

 

[Davian]

I think you should read that account of warrant a bit more carefully. Proper function is only one of the ingredients necessary for a belief to have warrant. The other is that one's faculties function “in a cognitive environment that is appropriate for S's kind of cognitive faculties.”

A brief moment ago, in evolutionary timescales, our cognitive environment was the African Savannah.

Yes, I'm inclined to agree with you there.

Actually, from an evolutionary standpoint, I don't think they need be accurate even that much -- or at all, really. All evolution is “concerned” with is that an organism behave in the requisite manner to survive and reproduce. It seems to me that having cognitive faculties successfully aimed at truth as such would be completely invisible to natural selection. I actually think this counts as evidence in favor of theism, because whereas evolution would “select” for cognitive faculties successfully aimed at truth only as a means to producing behaviors conducive to survival and reproduction, if God exists, then I think it would be reasonable to suppose that he might want to create beings who have the ability to think and reason to truth.

The problem with with you say there is in your use of the word "truth". When I see the word truth, I thing "has the state of being true". For evolutionary purposes, we don't need truth, we only need a degree of accuracy that allows us (or any other organism) to succeed within its niche. Our ancestors did not need to know the truth about which tree limb might support their weight, or if they can successfully make the jump to the next one; they only needed to make such determination with a degree of accuracy that was better than killing themselves off and becoming extinct, while in completion with other groups for the same resources. Our faculties evolved for accuracy within the niche in which our ancestors found themselves, not necessarily for discerning truth.

I'm not sure that I follow you here. What sort of “independently verifiable methodology” are you referring to? Wouldn't cognitive faculties successfully aimed at truth be required to successfully utilize such a methodology?

The cognitive faculties, by themselves? I don't see why they would.

When you look at an image, such as the one below, does your visual cortex resolve it as a static image, or one that appears to have movement? Even when you know that, intellectually, that the truth is that the image is actually static, does the perception of movement persist?

Are your senses reliable?

• Davian
• Mar 30, 2016
• 1

But I don't think Plantinga is trying to persuade everyone to accept the view that belief in his God is properly basic. I think he's taking the less ambitious route of arguing that if his God were to exist, then it would be reasonable to suppose that belief in his God is properly basic. As long as we operate within that assumption, then I don't see how Great Pumpkin does damage to his position.

I can't comment on that. The Great Pumpkin is as real to me as any other religion's god.

Well, that is the trick, isn't it? I have attempted to explain it on these forums before, but I seem only thus far to have managed to produce confusion. It is a highly-abstract concept, and thus not the easiest to communicate...

Take any set of true statements that contain an existential verb you like -- any at all: Davian exists; Barack Obama is human; two and two added together is four; necessarily, all triangles are trilateral, etc. Now isolate those existential verbs: exists, is, are, etc. I take it that the existential principle those verbs signify is the most fundamental principle that everything in all of reality shares in common with everything else, as there is nothing more fundamental to any thing at all that exists in any way whatsoever than its existence. It is because existence, or to exist, is so ubiquitous and so fundamental a principle amongst all beings of every kind that classical theists like myself identify it with the essential nature of God -- although not as a constitutive principle, as in beings other than God; but pure, absolute, unmingled, and unlimited. In other words, God's nature is simply, absolutely to be.

If you're interested, I think this is a pretty good primer on this particular subject.

Sure, but the "god" usually proffered around here is the one that walks and talks and stomps around in a [mythical] Garden of Eden, created everyone via a literal Adam and Eve, mysteriously flooded the entire planet, repopulated it again with only a few individuals, and sent himself down to impress the populace with magic tricks. Not only am I asked to swallow that whale of a story (did I mention the whale story?), I now have to toss out virtually all of mainstream scrientific knowledge in order to accomodate such beliefs. It demands disbelief.

The "God" described in your link sound like something completely different. More of a deist type god. And, who cares about those?

But I don't think being 100% right or 100% wrong are the only possibilities for a religion. Maybe there's a spectrum of being closer to orthodoxy or further from it, and maybe no religions are 100% wrong.

That flies in the face of what others preach at me in these forums. You either believe in their god in their way, or you are going to burn forever.

So I don't have a problem with persons who have different beliefs than my own having genuine religious experiences. If those experiences don't guide them all the way to 100% orthodoxy, then maybe they guide them just a little closer to it. I'm perfectly fine with that.

No, my point was that they are not all necessarily genuine religious experiences. Think of the Whirling Dervishes; are those genuine religious experiences, or are they just getting dizzy? Or, is there really no actual difference; religious experiences are simply a feeling we get in our head. Or other places. YMMV.

I actually have trouble with the way this thought experiment is framed from the very outset. I take it that Theist B has had an experience that falls in line with what we call “religious experience,” and that said experience has had some sort of positive effect on his/her life. Why can't these alone suffice to constitute a genuine religious experience? I don't see why not, so I don't see any reason why we should say that Theist B has had a false religious experience.

I would say that it matters in the context of a search for truth. Or, as I prefer, an accurate description of reality.

If Theist B's "genuine religious experience" did not require the existence of a God, how then can we (you) be confident that Theist A's experience required a God?

 

[Peter1000]

Speculation. I asked for actual data. How many star/planet systems did you actually check?

Davian says:
Speculation. I asked for actual data. How many star/planet systems did you actually check?

You tell how many there are, and I will get to work checking them all out. But in the mean time, I think "trillions X trillions" will be sufficient data for our discussion.

Davian:
<citation missing>

Whenever you use "citation missing" it means you are using an unclever way to avoid a meaningful response.
In this case, I have said that science has no idea how earth made its way to settle in it's position by the sun and it's perfect orbit around the sun. Because science has no factual data about it, but just theories, their only position can be: it happened by natural chance. Now if you would like to respond to that statement do so, if not, say "citation missing". I don't really care if you have a source citation or not, it is what you think that is important to me.

Davian:
That is not what I asked. What does your god use for a brain, as in, what is it made of, where is it?

I really thought you would get it, when I said His brain is like our brain, (made out of the same stuff our brain is made of) only much more advanced. I know, speculation and no citation, it is what I believe. God is a man, although a highly advanced man, a man nontheless, with a brain like yours, only far more advanced.

Davian:
Classic attempt to shirk your burden of evidence.

I have stated that the fossil record backs me up on no intermediate animals going from no central nervous system animals to fully functional central nervous system animals.
You are the one that is responding and your response again is insufficient for a continuing discussion. I quoted the fossil record. Go to the fossil record and prove me wrong. If not, let's not be siting, "shirking ones burden of evidence", to get away from the problem of responding.

Davian:
Does he talk to you? Do you hear voices?

Now here we have "classic scientific mud slinging and mocking". I say men in this day have seen God and have received information from him, and you resort to "do you hear voices". Please update your mockery.

Davian:
How we test your hypothesis? How do you show it to be there?

How do we test the hypothesis of non-living matter turning into a living cell?
You can't, believe me science has tried everything for centuries. God told a man in this time that spirit is "refined matter". That's it. You either have faith that that is correct or you don't. Can't prove it one way or the other. But I believe that dark matter is nothing more than spirit matter. No citation.

Davian:
<citation missing>

This citation missing had to do with the mysterious but constant "constants of the universe". Again science is besides itself trying to figure out what caused these constants to be and why are they so constant? Google "constants" and read up, it is a pure fingerprint to an intelligent being that is knowledgeable enough to organize and boot up the constants that produce life for this planet.

Davian:
ID is an argument against biblical-type gods.

Please, I wasn't born a minute ago. Intelligent Design says that an intelligent designer made it happen. How does that go against a biblical God, who designed the universe?
The problem for this designer is: how do I help my children know about My design?
It is Genesis that is the problem. God could have written his creation process in a very large technical manual, but believe me, this would have caused more problems than the 4 pages of Genesis. The Designer chose to gives us a glimpse, not a technical manual. The glimpse (Genesis) is only to get our faith going. It is not the whole answer. It is not even 1/1000 the answer. I have faith, and at the moment you do not.
That is the only difference between you and I.

 

[Ed1wolf]

I suspect I asked this question before in a different form, because I wonder about it a lot. Sometimes I like to imagine a benevolent God that I can talk to and so forth. I tell myself that maybe the Judeo Christian God is fiction, but my more generic chameleon-like God might actually exist.

The problem is that science can never find God's tracks. I ask myself if there is some inherent aspect of God that makes it impossible for Him to leave tracks. I ask myself if God can actually do anything meaningful without leaving tracks. Then there is the imaginary friend possibility. Imaginary friends serve a purpose and leave tracks in the real world even though they exist only in a human's imagination. I suppose the imaginary friend God that exists in human imaginations leaves tracks. Is it possible that God is real, but He restricts Himself to our imaginations? In other words, there is a real God that inspires humans to create imaginary friend Gods in their minds that then interact with the world? Could science tell if there was a real God behind these imaginary friend Gods?

Actually, God has left a HUGE Track, it is called the universe. Plus all the good things that He has done thru His people on the earth. Almost everything good about western civilization comes from Christianity. Modern science, modern hospitals, modern universities, ending slavery and etc.

 

[bhsmte]

Actually, God has left a HUGE Track, it is called the universe. Plus all the good things that He has done thru His people on the earth. Almost everything good about western civilization comes from Christianity. Modern science, modern hospitals, modern universities, ending slavery and etc.

You can certainly believe that, just let us know, when you can demonstrate it, with something other than your opinion.

 

[Hieronymus]

I suspect I asked this question before in a different form, because I wonder about it a lot.

i find that hard to believe, because you decided God leaves no tracks.
Then you must be unaware of the tracks God has left.
You should ask:
What tracks, if any, did God leave ?

The problem is that science can never find God's tracks.

This is nonsense.
You mean to say: Naturalistic popular science chooses to ignore and / or deny God, so as a consequence, there are no tracks either.

I ask myself if there is some inherent aspect of God that makes it impossible for Him to leave tracks.

You still assume He didn't leave tracks, but that's bogus.

 

[Ed1wolf]

You can certainly believe that, just let us know, when you can demonstrate it, with something other than your opinion.

As far as the universe is concerned, according to the BB theory and the law of causality, the universe needs a Cause that exists "outside" the universe. And there exists in the universe purposes, such as eyes for seeing and ears for hearing. Since we know that purposes only come from intelligent personal minds, then the Cause of the universe must be personal and intelligent, just as God is defined. And also the universe is a diversity within a unity, which is also a basic characteristic of the Triune Christian God, showing that that is His "fingerprint" on His creation of this universe.

 

[bhsmte]

As far as the universe is concerned, according to the BB theory and the law of causality, the universe needs a Cause that exists "outside" the universe. And there exists in the universe purposes, such as eyes for seeing and ears for hearing. Since we know that purposes only come from intelligent personal minds, then the Cause of the universe must be personal and intelligent, just as God is defined. And also the universe is a diversity within a unity, which is also a basic characteristic of the Triune Christian God, showing that that is His "fingerprint" on His creation of this universe.

Please demonstrate, that the god you believe in, is the cause of anything.

 

[cloudyday2]

i find that hard to believe, because you decided God leaves no tracks.

o.k. how about: "if God exists, then where are the tracks?".
I'm getting a little annoyed by people repeatedly telling me that my questions are not sincere. Ironically, this seems to always happen when my questions are the most sincere. I suspect you and others are stereotyping my personality and beliefs because my account is labeled "atheist". There are many different kinds of atheists, and I'm not sure that the majority of atheists appreciate my inclusion under their tent due to my odd ideas. So lets quit all the stereotyping. Everybody here is an individual.