Why I believe in God

[Percivale]

The cosmic egg is the universe a long time ago. It didn't have galaxies, because those are contingent entities that had developed over time, but it was not fundamentally different. The multiverse as well is not fundamentally different. Neither is a supernatural or spiritual entity.

God, as typically described by theologians, is fundamentally different than natural reality (e.g., God is not made out of atoms), and God is said to have supernatural powers. God is also often said to be a "spirit", and "outside of time". None is this is true for the cosmic egg or multiverse.

As introduced in this thread, the cosmic egg was understood to be timeless: "at t=0." If you believe there was an eternal succession of universes, your point is valid, but if you believe there was a beginning, then that implies a fundamentally different state of affair than what we've ever observed.

But, if you want to go down this road you are on, I would ask: How do *you* know what the requirements are for the creation of a universe? Need it be intelligent, if we do not know how many - if any - options are available to this hypothetical creator? How powerful need it be, noting that the universe is observed to have a sum total energy of zero? Why does it need to be a "god" (however you have defined it)?

It's totally irrelevant if the sum total energy of the universe is zero, because the actual available energy is huge. A fully charged battery has a sum energy of zero, but that doesn't mean it didn't take any energy to charge it. Separating the positive charge from the negative charge takes lots of energy. How much intelligence and power it would take to create our universe is uncertain, but it seems pretty clear to be far beyond the combined ability of the human race.

Some make the dubious proposition that the Flame happens to have personhood as a significant attribute.

Actually, most do. And I think it's likely that if atheism was true everyone would be atheists. Incidentally, it's pretty hard to call oneself both atheist and humanist, because religion is one of the most universally valued things to humans, and to be an atheist one has to consider so many people deluded liars (it has that in common with religious fundamentalism).

 

[Percivale]

It all seems that you are simply working backwards from conclusion that you need to hold on to. It is not actually why you believe in a god.

Of course it's not the only reason, there are a great many reasons I believe in God, some objective, some subjective, some in between. But you have no basis for judging that this argument is not convincing to me, even though it's not convincing to you. It is quite possible for a person to rationally believe that the universe has an absolute beginning, and that such a beginning requires an intelligent cause. Just because you don't see things that way doesn't mean no one does.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Actually, most do.

Most people make the dubious proposition that Flame has personhood even though, as a flame, it does not?

And I think it's likely that if atheism was true everyone would be atheists.

On what do you base this? Do you apply this reasoning to your own religious faith also? "I think it's likely that if Christianity were true everyone would be Christian."

Incidentally, it's pretty hard to call oneself both atheist and humanist, because religion is one of the most universally valued things to humans,

Religion is valued by some humans, yes, but it is not universally valued. Just to be clear, it's not necessarily religion that is valued per se, but one's own religion. That's an important distinction.

and to be an atheist one has to consider so many people deluded liars (it has that in common with religious fundamentalism).

On what do you base this? To be an atheist one simply has to not be a theist.

 

[Davian]

You get ahead of yourself too quickly there.

I was listening to a talk with physicist Sean Carroll, and he explained how the reality is that physicists do not talk about "cause and effect", they talk of "models and equations".

But, if you want to go down this road you are on, I would ask: How do *you* know what the requirements are for the creation of a universe? Need it be intelligent, if we do not know how many - if any - options are available to this hypothetical creator? How powerful need it be, noting that the universe is observed to have a sum total energy of zero? Why does it need to be a "god" (however you have defined it)?

It's totally irrelevant if the sum total energy of the universe is zero, because the actual available energy is huge. A fully charged battery has a sum energy of zero, but that doesn't mean it didn't take any energy to charge it.

You are comparing apples to orange crates. We cannot take power out of the universe, and we cannot use the battery's potential energy to charge itself.

Separating the positive charge from the negative charge takes lots of energy.

How do you know this, as it applies to the instantiation of the cosmos? Appealing to common sense would be a fallacy.

How much intelligence and power it would take to create our universe is uncertain, but it seems pretty clear to be far beyond the combined ability of the human race.

Uncertain, as we do not actually know what, if any, options are available to a hypothetical creator. Or, they all were. The anthropic principle, and all that.

Actually, most do. And I think it's likely that if atheism was true everyone would be atheists.

Atheism is not a truth statement.

Incidentally, it's pretty hard to call oneself both atheist and humanist, because religion is one of the most universally valued things to humans,

Appeal to popularity is a fallacy.

and to be an atheist one has to

To be an atheist, one simply has to lack a belief in deities.

consider so many people deluded liars

Not at all. I do not consider theists to be "deluded liars", so you are wrong on that point.

(it has that in common with religious fundamentalism).

Only in your strawman version of it. Must you?

 

[Davian]

It all seems that you are simply working backwards from conclusion that you need to hold on to. It is not actually why you believe in a god.

Of course it's not the only reason, there are a great many reasons I believe in God, some objective, some subjective, some in between. But you have no basis for judging that this argument is not convincing to me, even though it's not convincing to you.

That is not what I said, was it?

It is quite possible for a person to rationally believe that the universe has an absolute beginning, and that such a beginning requires an intelligent cause. Just because you don't see things that way doesn't mean no one does.

The ability to rationalize something is in no way indicative of it being an accurate description of reality.

 

[Percivale]

Most people make the dubious proposition that Flame has personhood even though, as a flame, it does not?

Equivocation.

On what do you base this? Do you apply this reasoning to your own religious faith also? "I think it's likely that if Christianity were true everyone would be Christian."

I base this on natural selection. The New Atheists tend to claim that religion is bad for humanity. If so, natural selection would not favor it. And we know that religious impulses have led to sacrificing things that could be eaten, following various taboos that are not helpful, etc, and it often does so the most in the most primitives cultures. These are better explained as a misdirection of impulses that have a source in truth, rather than a fluke of evolution.

Religion is valued by some humans, yes, but it is not universally valued. Just to be clear, it's not necessarily religion that is valued per se, but one's own religion. That's an important distinction.

This is true of many fundamentalists of all religions, but not of myself, and I doubt I'm the only one.

On what do you base this? To be an atheist one simply has to not be a theist.

To be an atheist, one has to believe that every single person who has ever claimed to have witnessed a miracle, had a near death experience, or any other experience of the supernatural, is a liar, or deluded, or both. I did not mean that atheists must consider all theists deluded or liars.
I realize this hasn't hit home to many atheists, and they don't know as many such people, so I don't really blame them for it, but it's a reason I couldn't be an atheist. I do believe God intentionally set up things so all sorts of beliefs would be held and discussed; he has a purpose for atheists too, and won't send them to hell just for not believing in him.

One thing I keep seeing is atheists treating their position as the default. I don't think this is valid, since most people have always believed in God, and it hasn't been proved that God is less likely to exist than not. True, I don't know everything about how the universe came to be, but neither does anyone. I'm not saying God's creating it is proven beyond doubt, only that it is more likely, based on what we know.

The ability to rationalize something is in no way indicative of it being an accurate description of reality.
How do you know this, as it applies to the instantiation of the cosmos? Appealing to common sense would be a fallacy.

What should we use to examine our beliefs, if not reason and sense?

Atheism is not a truth statement

So, God could exist and yet one be an atheist and have an accurate understanding of ultimate reality?

Appeal to popularity is a fallacy.

True, it does not prove anything, but it remains a phenomenon that needs an explanation. I do not find the idea that religion had survival value convincing. The value of religion depends on humans having a need for what religion offers. Those needs are not themselves useful to survival, as they concern the soul, not the body. If atheism is true, a tribe that focused on only tangible cause and effect and accepted chance would have an advantage over one that attributed their success or failure in hunting, etc to spirits and spent time and resources trying to appease them. If the human need for religion is innate, put there by God, however, the tribe that recognized such desires would attract more members though. If it is just an evolutionary variable, it would be selected against though, since at first many people would not have it and would prefer the first tribe.

 

[Davian]

I don't quite recognize the mess made of Archaeopteryx's and my post, but lets have a go...

...
To be an atheist, one has to believe that every single person who has ever claimed to have witnessed a miracle, had a near death experience, or any other experience of the supernatural, is a liar, or deluded, or both. I did not mean that atheists must consider all theists deluded or liars.

I can tell you from personal experience that this is not the case. For my first forty years I simply viewed religion as a hobby that others did. I even married a Christian girl, without even thinking of the possible complications.

Now, I would ask you to define "supernatural" in a way that would differentiate it from meaning "things imaginary". I can work with that definition, if you like.

I realize this hasn't hit home to many atheists, and they don't know as many such people,

We have been married 25 years now. Life is sweet.

so I don't really blame them for it, but it's a reason I couldn't be an atheist.

To be an atheist, you simply lack belief in a god. It is not like belief is a conscious choice. There are individuals on this board that will tell you that they would much rather believe than not.

I do believe God intentionally set up things so all sorts of beliefs would be held and discussed; he has a purpose for atheists too, and won't send them to hell just for not believing in him.

Rewriting your bible?

One thing I keep seeing is atheists treating their position as the default.

The lack of belief is the default, however you wish to label it.

I don't think this is valid, since most people have always believed in God,

Appeals to popularity are fallacies.

and it hasn't been proved that God is less likely to exist than not.

For that to happen, "God" would first need to be defined in some testable, falsifiable manner. Care to give that a try?

True, I don't know everything about how the universe came to be, but neither does anyone.

lol. The problem there is, if you use that hole to pull your god through, you will also leave the Earth covered in invisible, immaterial marshmallows. Try driving though those on the freeway.

I'm not saying God's creating it is proven beyond doubt, only that it is more likely, based on what we know.

What is a "god", and how did you determine this likelihood for such a thing to exist? Show your work.

What should we use to examine our beliefs, if not reason and sense?

"Reason and sense" are demonstrably unreliable for evaluating our perceptions of reality, hence the development of scientific methodology, and the concept of falsifiability.

So, God could exist and yet one be an atheist and have an accurate understanding of ultimate reality?

No, I said, atheism is not a truth statement. I do not know what you mean by "ultimate reality".

True, it does not prove anything, but it remains a phenomenon that needs an explanation. I do not find the idea that religion had survival value convincing.

It is my understanding that religion hijacks the traits that evolved for survivability.

"Why We Believe in Gods" Andy Thomson Lecture at American Atheists 09 - YouTube

The value of religion depends on humans having a need for what religion offers.

Same for amusement parks.

Those needs are not themselves useful to survival, as they concern the soul, not the body.

What is a "soul"? Is it "supernatural"?

If atheism is true,

Atheism is not a truth statement. Why do you not say "If there are no gods..." or "If I am wrong about my God..."?

a tribe that focused on only tangible cause and effect and accepted chance would have an advantage over one that attributed their success or failure in hunting, etc to spirits and spent time and resources trying to appease them. If the human need for religion is innate, put there by God, however, the tribe that recognized such desires would attract more members though. If it is just an evolutionary variable, it would be selected against though, since at first many people would not have it and would prefer the first tribe.

If the human need for things religious is an evolved trait, or takes advantage of an evolved trait, then tribes that took advantage of that may be more successful than those that didn't, particularly if in competition with other tribes that did not do that, when in competition for the same resources. The advantage only has to be slight. And, Occam's razor - no actual gods required.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Equivocation.

Where is the equivocation?

I base this on natural selection. The New Atheists tend to claim that religion is bad for humanity. If so, natural selection would not favor it. And we know that religious impulses have led to sacrificing things that could be eaten, following various taboos that are not helpful, etc, and it often does so the most in the most primitives cultures. These are better explained as a misdirection of impulses that have a source in truth, rather than a fluke of evolution.

The mere fact that religion exists is not a justification for the truth of religious claims.

To be an atheist, one has to believe that every single person who has ever claimed to have witnessed a miracle, had a near death experience, or any other experience of the supernatural, is a liar, or deluded, or both. I did not mean that atheists must consider all theists deluded or liars.

No, there are many more options and you've neglected the most obvious one: that the theist is mistaken in his belief.

True, I don't know everything about how the universe came to be, but neither does anyone. I'm not saying God's creating it is proven beyond doubt, only that it is more likely, based on what we know.

I'm not convinced of that.

True, it does not prove anything, but it remains a phenomenon that needs an explanation. I do not find the idea that religion had survival value convincing. The value of religion depends on humans having a need for what religion offers. Those needs are not themselves useful to survival, as they concern the soul, not the body. If atheism is true, a tribe that focused on only tangible cause and effect and accepted chance would have an advantage over one that attributed their success or failure in hunting, etc to spirits and spent time and resources trying to appease them. If the human need for religion is innate, put there by God, however, the tribe that recognized such desires would attract more members though. If it is just an evolutionary variable, it would be selected against though, since at first many people would not have it and would prefer the first tribe.

There are various reasons why religion may take root. Here is an interesting article discussing some of them in depth.

 

[Eudaimonist]

As introduced in this thread, the cosmic egg was understood to be timeless: "at t=0."

The cosmic egg is only as timeless as the universe is now at an estimated t=13.8 billion years.

Saying that the cosmic egg exists at t=0 simply means that it existed in the past, and it no longer exists except in its changed form. It has changed to become what the universe is right now. The cosmic egg was spacetime, just as the universe now is spacetime.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Isnt t=0 a contradiction in terms? Like cake=0, there is no cake. You can't have your cake and eat it.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Isnt t=0 a contradiction in terms?

No.

Like cake=0, there is no cake. You can't have your cake and eat it.

Imagine you have a ruler. The ruler is labelled in inches. Imagine that I am pointing to the extreme low end of the ruler -- to the zero position. Is there a contradiction in doing that?

t=0 refers to the earliest identifiable moment in time. If Doctor Who was travelling back in Time, this would be the earliest point to which he could travel.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Whereof one cannot speak, one must remain silent. - Wittgenstein.

My new signature*:



















* Hope you liked it.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

The way i see it all "points" are infinite, or nothings. The "one inch" point is not an inch, the inch refers to the whole set beteween 0 and 1, inclusive.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The way i see it all "points" are infinite, or nothings. The "one inch" point is not an inch, the inch refers to the whole set beteween 0 and 1, inclusive.

That's fine, but there's no contradiction in saying that no time has yet passed. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with a zero measurement.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Percivale]

Davian:

I can tell you from personal experience that this is not the case. For my first forty years I simply viewed religion as a hobby that others did. I even married a Christian girl, without even thinking of the possible complications.

I don't see how this refers to what I said. I referred to what an atheist (not an agnostic etc.) would logically have to believe about someone who claimed to have witnessed a miracle (not just any Christian). If someone witnessed a miracle accurately, atheism cannot logically be true, therefore atheists must deny that the witness is accurate. An inaccurate witness is either mistaken (deluded means the same thing denotationally), or is lying.

Now, I would ask you to define "supernatural" in a way that would differentiate it from meaning "things imaginary". I can work with that definition, if you like.

A miracle, or supernatural occurence, is one involving superhuman beings, such as God. Just as a car would seem miraculous to a cave man, so if God or an angel, using their superior knowledge of the universe and ability, healed someone instantly, etc, we would call that a miracle. I suppose this definition would apply to aliens too (until we learned their technology), but then angels are a kind of alien.

Rewriting your bible?

Why do you assume I believe everything the Bible says?

The lack of belief is the default, however you wish to label it.

Why? It's not what many of us start with.

To be an atheist, you simply lack belief in a god. It is not like belief is a conscious choice. There are individuals on this board that will tell you that they would much rather believe than not.

No, belief is not a choice, it's an outcome, ideally, of examining and weighing the evidence. Before doing so, one has no right to discuss the question, afterwards, one comes to a conclusion of yes, no, or insufficient evidence. As I understand the words, the third option makes you an agnostic, the second an atheist, so if you are an atheist, you have positive reason to believe God does not exist. When you say belief in 'a god', do you mean a particular God? If so, then deists are atheists, which is nonsense.

For that to happen, "God" would first need to be defined in some testable, falsifiable manner. Care to give that a try?

'God' is an umbrella term including any being that possesses intelligence, goodness, power, eternity, and preeminence (is greater than any other extant being.) Mormons believe God is physical, most Christians that he is triune, Hindus that he is dreaming (I think), Sikhs that he is composed of an unknowable essence and a knowable manifestation, etc. All these are theories about the same entity.

Atheism is not a truth statement. Why do you not say "If there are no gods..." or "If I am wrong about my God..."

I can phrase it that way if you prefer, but that is what I mean by the word 'atheism.'
Archaeopteryx:

Where is the equivocation?

In what you mean by the Flame. Is it personal or not, or a blanket category that includes both? Stick with one meaning.

No, there are many more options and you've neglected the most obvious one: that the theist is mistaken in his belief.

Either you don't understand me or I don't understand you. Do you mean I am mistaken in believing that people have claimed to have witnessed miracles?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Davian:
I don't see how this refers to what I said. I referred to what an atheist (not an agnostic etc.) would logically have to believe about someone who claimed to have witnessed a miracle (not just any Christian). If someone witnessed a miracle accurately, atheism cannot logically be true, therefore atheists must deny that the witness is accurate. An inaccurate witness is either mistaken (deluded means the same thing denotationally), or is lying.

Mistaken and deluded are not the same. You can be mistaken without being deluded.

Why? It's not what many of us start with.

You started with a particular theology?

No, belief is not a choice, it's an outcome, ideally, of examining and weighing the evidence. Before doing so, one has no right to discuss the question, afterwards, one comes to a conclusion of yes, no, or insufficient evidence. As I understand the words, the third option makes you an agnostic, the second an atheist, so if you are an atheist, you have positive reason to believe God does not exist. When you say belief in 'a god', do you mean a particular God? If so, then deists are atheists, which is nonsense.

One can be an agnostic atheist.

'God' is an umbrella term including any being that possesses intelligence, goodness, power, eternity, and preeminence (is greater than any other extant being.) Mormons believe God is physical, most Christians that he is triune, Hindus that he is dreaming (I think), Sikhs that he is composed of an unknowable essence and a knowable manifestation, etc. All these are theories about the same entity.

How do you determine which of these theories is likely true?

In what you mean by the Flame. Is it personal or not, or a blanket category that includes both? Stick with one meaning.

I already made clear that it's not personal, but that some believers (e.g., Christians, Muslims and Jews) make the dubious proposition that is personal.

Either you don't understand me or I don't understand you. Do you mean I am mistaken in believing that people have claimed to have witnessed miracles?

No, because people have claimed to have witnessed miracles.

 

[Davian]

Davian:
I don't see how this refers to what I said. I referred to what an atheist (not an agnostic etc.)

Those terms are not mutually exclusive.

would logically have to believe about someone who claimed to have witnessed a miracle (not just any Christian). If someone witnessed a miracle accurately, atheism cannot logically be true,

Atheism is not a truth statement. Is English not your native language?

therefore atheists must deny that the witness is accurate. An inaccurate witness is either mistaken (deluded means the same thing denotationally),

Where do you get these definitions from?

or is lying.

Or, mistaken, or stories of miracles are exaggerations or complete fabrications. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously and demonstrably unreliable.

Penn and Teller demonstrated that things like the indian rope trick can be believed to be possible, and to have happened, even in modern times.

"The "classic" version, however, was much more detailed: the rope would seem to rise high into the skies, disappearing from view. The boy would climb the rope and be lost to view. The magician would call back his boy assistant, and, on getting no response, become furious. The magician would then arm himself with a knife or sword, climb the rope, and vanish as well. An argument would be heard, and then limbs would start falling, presumably cut from the assistant by the magician. When all the parts of the body, including the torso, landed on the ground, the magician would climb down the rope. He would collect the limbs and put them in a basket, or collect the limbs in one place and cover them with a cape or blanket. Soon the boy would appear, restored." wiki

The "magic" happens at 46 min.

Penn & Teller MMT INDIA - YouTube

A miracle, or supernatural occurence, is one involving superhuman beings, such as God. Just as a car would seem miraculous to a cave man, so if God or an angel, using their superior knowledge of the universe and ability, healed someone instantly, etc, we would call that a miracle. I suppose this definition would apply to aliens too (until we learned their technology), but then angels are a kind of alien.

All you did there was to presuppose the existence of miracles, gods, and angels. I am asking you to define "supernatural" in a way that would differentiate it from meaning "things imaginary". I will continue working with that definition, if you like.

Why do you assume I believe everything the Bible says?

It is my understanding that adding to or changing what is found in the bible is not cricket. Changing to whatever you want it to say is fine by me - it has no authority in itself.

Why? It's not what many of us start with.

Who is this "us" that you speak for?

No, belief is not a choice, it's an outcome, ideally, of examining and weighing the evidence. Before doing so, one has no right to discuss the question, afterwards, one comes to a conclusion of yes, no, or insufficient evidence. As I understand the words, the third option makes you an agnostic, the second an atheist, so if you are an atheist, you have positive reason to believe God does not exist.

If you lack belief in a god, you are an atheist. I do not believe in a god, or believe that gods do not exist. What do you label that?

When you say belief in 'a god', do you mean a particular God?

At this time, I am only discussing 'gods' in general. We can discuss specific gods - yours - if we can get you to define in some testable manner what you mean by "supernatural".

If so, then deists are atheists, which is nonsense.

I think you should work on sorting out your own brand of nonsense before casting stones, as it were.

'God' is an umbrella term including any being that possesses intelligence, goodness, power, eternity, and preeminence (is greater than any other extant being.) Mormons believe God is physical, most Christians that he is triune, Hindus that he is dreaming (I think), Sikhs that he is composed of an unknowable essence and a knowable manifestation, etc.

I asked for it to be defined in some testable, falsifiable manner, not what you believe. Try again.

All these are theories about the same entity.

These are not "theories", and that they are the same entity smacks of wishful thinking.

I can phrase it that way if you prefer, but that is what I mean by the word 'atheism.'

Say what you mean rather that using your own personal definitions that do not line up with common usage. Are you comfortable with me defining "supernatural" as "things imaginary" and "theist" as "believing in things imaginary"?

 

[Percivale]

The graph makes it clearer. I've been using atheist to mean gnostic atheist, and agnostic to mean agnostic atheist. I'm a semignostic theist I guess, as I'm more interested in probability than certainty, and find that what one can know depends on one's access t o data, which is different for different people

Atheism is not a truth statement. Is English not your native language?

It is, but I still find this statement unbelievable. Isn't a truth statement a proposition that is either true or false, and atheism the proposition that there is no God?

Say what you mean rather that using your own personal definitions that do not line up with common usage. Are you comfortable with me defining "supernatural" as "things imaginary" and "theist" as "believing in things imaginary"?

Would you be comfortable discussing the existence of dark energy with someone who defined it as 'the imaginary force? A definition that assumes the position being defended is not that helpful. If God exists, miracles are his actions, if not, they are imaginary. Does that work for you?

Or, mistaken, or stories of miracles are exaggerations or complete fabrications. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously and demonstrably unreliable.

Then you agree with my statement, except that deluded was too strong a word.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Isn't a truth statement a proposition that is either true or false, and atheism the proposition that there is no God?

Atheism is being unconvinced of the proposition that there is a God, such that one lacks belief in such a being. Just that.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[talquin]

Here's the evidence I find most convincing that God exists.

Our universe had a beginning. The Big Bang is accepted by nearly all scientists.
If the universe had a beginning, either there is an eternal multiverse or succession of universes, or God created it. To say it just happened without a cause I see as highly irrational, but for sake of argument I'll pretend it is possible.

The multiverse or succession of universes means there have been an actual infinite number of universes. That raises some logical difficulties. It also means everything happening now has already happened an infinite number of times. Also, the second law of thermodynamics has to be 100% false on that ultimate level. I don't say it's impossible, but it's a pretty huge concept.

We have four options then. If none of them have any observational evidence and are equally good at explaining the universe, it is equally rational to favor any of them.

Life had a beginning. Either God made it, or an extremely unlikely coincidence did. (panspermia, etc, just pushes the problem back a step.)
Life arising from nonlife is totally unobserved, so not more probable than God.

Humans are wired to want to know what is ultimately true, to desire meaning, beauty, and other things that are not important to survival and reproduction. It's to be expected that God would design these qualities, but if they evolved naturally that is another unlikely coincidence.

One hypothesis, God, explains several diverse phenomena that require multiple hypotheses to explain without God, and which don't do as well. Thus God is the most probable explanation for the universe, life, and the human psychology, and it is more rational to be a theist than an atheist.

If someone could provide 100% proof that your god doesn't exist, would you revise your belief?