luvluv

"I guess children who die get a free "go to heaven" ticket."

No not in my theology. I'm sure you've been around at some point when I mentioned that the Book of Revelation seems to mention a time period after the second coming when Satan will be released to tempt a large portion of mankind. Christians believe these people to be people who have never had a chance to hear the gospel. I assume the prematurely dead will be included in that number with those who never had a chance to hear the gospel because of geography or chronology.

"Easy to say from your comfortable chair, isn't it. I wonder how those kids felt as she drowned them."

Yep, after all I've never been hurt by anyone else, right? I'm living on easy street over here. No consequences from other folks abusing their free will on this side of the computer, no sir! Hey there are a few more vacant lots avaliable on easy street, you should consider a move!

As to your other charges against God, I am not a Biblical literalist, so when the Bible says God ordered certain crimes, I believe the writers to be mistaken.

Pomp

luvluv,

But we do not have the expectation that a Creator would be detectable for at least two reasons 1) He does not need to inhabit our physcial universe and 2) We may not have the technology yet to detect Him.

I understand and agree with these two statements. I disagree, however, with the conclusion that you seem to be drawing from them. You are stating, I think, that since we have no reason to expect that we could detect a creator, if one existed, then we ought to go ahead and believe in one anyway, in the absence of evidence. I disagree, and assert that the only reasonable response to a concept of a creator that is undetectable is complete agnosticism which is, in fact, my own position on creator deities.

Might I also inform you, as I said in the threads on the mind, that the specific content of your thoughts also falls into the same category of the IPU and God.

This is demonstrably false. As has been pointed out to you a number of times I can and do directly observe the specific content of my own thoughts.

And again, the association of God with a belief in the ridiculous does not make the belief in God ridiculous.

Why, exactly, without reference to evidential arguments, do you find belief in the IPU ridiculous but not belief in a god?

You have just adressed two things you are incapable of detecting, that doesn't make either of them non-existant.

No, of course not, but neither does it give me any rational reason to believe in either of them.

Typhon

Luvluv sez more...

If god does not choose to be detected, and cannot be detected other than by choice, then there is nothing to say about god. There is no reason to suspect that he even exists at all. If you said after that line of reasoning, "thus, I assert nothing about god, neither his existence nor non-existence" I wouldn't have a problem with your statement. However, that is not the case. You go on to claim that he does exist. Therefore, the burden of the proof of his existence, and why we can not perceive it, rests solely on you, the believer in this invisible, undetectable thing.

Again, it is also no grounds upon which to draw the conclusion that any such god exists at all. The absence of a thing and our inability to find "that which does not exist" is not proof by any means, that that thing somehow exists, but exists simply beyond our perception.

I said "before the creation" that there was a "void." I'm taking the approach that canon Christian theology takes, that "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." Genesis1:1-2 This would seem to indicate that nothing, except god existed before the act of creation. It certainly says nothing about god creating the world in a universe separate from the one he inhabits. If anything, it suggests that the mythical creation was supposed to have occurred in the space that god already occupied, and that the world came into existence in the same place, were ever that might be, that god was. I assumed you were some sort of Christian, if you have a different creation myth, let me know.

Wrong. There is nothing in the nature of the creation, as dictated by either the Christian canon or as described by you, that would suggest this. People get confused all the time about such notions of space and absence of space. Even by more realistic theories of existence, such as the Big Bang, the universe wasn't created "into a separate space." Space as we know it, the universe as we know it, was created as the universe itself was formed. Even in Christian myth this is the way things work, or certainly, do not contradict this statement. There is nothing to suggest that god moved into some open, empty space and created the universe, and then went back to his own neighborhood. Whatever the place it was that god resided in, there is no suggestion in the canon creation myth that "infers" that he made the world anywhere but in the same place, out of the "void."

Then what is your point about it? Why bring it up at all? If you don't know enough to talk about it, then don't.
Wrong, yet again. Are you trying to be purposefully obtuse?

I do not "not believe in God because he is not detectable in this physical universe," I don't believe in god AND he is not detectable in this physical universe. There is a HUGE difference between those two statements. I don’t believe in god, period. He doesn't make sense from a logical point of view, there is nothing in the world around me or in man's exploration of the universe that argues for or requires his presence, and I've never seen anything that is not explainable by natural, far more likely and plausible causes. Therefore, I have no natural or logical reason to believe in god. As YOU are the believer in this "god" and you claim he exists, not I, your "opinion" is irrefutably wrong, and the clear burden of proof lies squarely on you to show that he does. Otherwise, you are no better than a liar or a madman who claims fraudulently that he is the king of Siam.

Well for starters, because he created it, according to you. If your god is not detectable within the medium of his creation, by means of either his presence or his acts, then there is again, nothing to say about him, no more than any other imaginary, non-existing figment that you or I might imagine.

Nonsense, and I hold no such position, nor have I ever stated that I did. The only thing it is, is lack of any proof of the existence of this god which you claim, exists. I don't believe god exists in the first place. I don't see you able to provide any evidence that he does or even is detectable. If there is no proof and god can not be detected (whether by choice or by nature it matters not) then why would I expect to change my opinion that god does not exist?

Again you seem to have completely misunderstood the entirety of the argument presented here. It is not, and has never been, my conclusion that the absence of any evidence of god in the physical universe is conclusive proof that he does not exist. I can not disprove that an invisible pink unicorn lies gibbering in the center of the universe simply by the fact that no evidence for its existence is observable. However, (may the IPU forgive me if I'm wrong), as I already don't believe in the existence of invisible pink unicorns, the lack of their (apparent) presence in the universe does not unnerve me. If anything, it only strengthens the likelihood that my suspicion of their non-existence is well founded.
No, you have claimed god exists. Then you have gone on about how he isn't detectable in our universe. And I have said, why shouldn't he be detectable in our universe, and you have stated that somehow I can't use his non-presence to proof his non-existence, because he is, surprise, not detectable in our universe, and I say back again, that you are the one who thinks this fairy tale is real, so where is YOUR proof.

So what are you saying? That our science is just not CURRENTLY able to detect god? We in the past didn't know how electricity or storms worked either, and oddly enough, we don't worship many thunder gods these days now that CURRENTLY we are able to better explain these phenomena. If anything, once our science is even better at understanding the universe and how it was formed, there will be less reason, not more, to believe in some fanciful god-creator. And besides, you still have not presented a convincing argument about the mind. I say we have plenty of means at our disposal to detect it "scientifically" whatever you think that means. We can explain it chemically, structurally, electrically, behaviorally, in terms of evolution, in relation to many diseases and aliments, to development, nutrition, genetics, and even trace what areas are stimulated, how, what receptors are triggered, what hormones and chemicals make it work, and how mood, thoughts, knowledge, language, and memory work. Is the science of the mind complete? Of course not, it is a system of exploration AND a growing body of knowledge just like any field. But it is more than sufficient to say that is exists for more reasons than just "cognito, ergo sum."

And I say you have chosen a poor example, because we can "objectively" detect the brain and many of its functions. Your own brain is itself an instrument of such detection, and while I do not have the means to tell if you're thinking "red ball" or "crimson ball" when you look at a bright-red ball, you certainly do. I can however, tell that you're thinking, and even, with the right equipment and study, that you're thinking about color. What more do I need to do to show that your brain is detectable?

Well, I admit, some of what you pass as arguments, does have me wondering... Seriously though, of course I can prove that your thoughts exist, and most importantly, you can. You just had them didn't you? They were detectable to you were they not? You can write them down, discuss them, lie about them, record them, remember them, and communicate them with others. That seems fairly demonstrative evidence that they exist. Now you could be crazy sure, you could be deluded, you could be wrong, but regardless, if you say you have a thought, you're proof that you think. We don't have to have a bloody machine which spits out your exact thoughts from 500 miles away on a ticker-tape of banality to prove that thoughts "exist." That's utter nonsense. Everything I'm putting down here is evidence of thoughts that are being created and used by my brain to communicate knowledge and specific ideas.

What are you an infant? Do your thoughts disappear because you cover your eyes and say "where did baby go?" You have not even come close to showing " ...things exist that cannot be detected."

Sure it can, all it requires is a piece of paper and a number 2 pencil. Hardly requires a break-through in neuroscience to determine. What do you think science is? Some glowing magical stone? A guy with a wizard cap who can guess your age, weight, and telephone number by holding a card over his forehead?

sci·ence
n.

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

That I can't read your mind like some fortune teller is of no matter, that I can talk to you about your thoughts, and even, correlate them to changes in your brain chemistry, neurotransmitter levels, or even modify them through drugs, electrical stimulus, therapy, and a host of other techniques, is all part of a naturalistic, scientific approach to the contents of your mind. Your thoughts exist, likely, and you've gone a long way to showing visible, tangible proof that they do, even if in this case, I don't agree with their specific contents and find their reasoning, faulty.

1. These are your points, not mine. I've never said that a god HAS to be detectable in the medium of his creation. You would expect a god to be, considering he went to the trouble of creation in the first place, and assuming he cares about anyone believing in him, but yes, an absentee landlord of a god could easily go along creating a slew of universes in which he never again passed through or otherwise paid any attention to, and if he was careful to construct them in a way that made them appear not the product of intelligent artifice and totally naturalistic (like our own appears strongly to be), there would be conceivably no reason to think you would notice the creator's presence or even footprint in the medium of the creation.

A creator would certainly thus be well advised to be detectable in the medium he created, if he wanted anyone to believe he existed. A point in fact, according to Christian canon, and lots of it, the god of such scriptures is frequently detectable in the medium of his creation. He walks, talks, smites, hides, and interacts with his created subjects frequently, almost constantly. He wanders through the garden of Eden, and even calls out when his fist two lab rats hide from him in the bushes. In the middle ages he frequently made miracles and all sorts of divine visitations (or his appointed saints and spiritual stand-ins) widely visible. Again, its telling that now that such fakery is harder to perpetrate, less and less of this is relied upon by the faithful to show and demonstrate his dubious existence.

2. Not being able to detect any existence of a god in the universe or the universe's creation, is not the reason to disbelieve in the existence of gods. However, having already had no reason to believe that any god exists, it does not strengthen the claims of those who do. No logical or moral need for god + no evidence other than the rankest and most ignorant of superstitions of his existence = no reason to suspect that one exists.

Let me ask you this: Why do you not believe in the Umpledoopurudu? I can offer no tangible proof of the Umpledoopurudu's existence in the detectable, physical universe, but is that the reason why you don't believe in the Umpledoopurudu?

.T.

Well, it reaches into your brain "chemically," and then it locates your happiest memory "chemically," then it locks onto that emotion and freezes it "chemically," and then it keeps you happy, happy. - Kids in the Hall, Brain Candy

[ April 10, 2002: Message edited by: Typhon ]</p>

luvluv

"You are stating, I think, that since we have no reason to expect that we could detect a creator, if one existed, then we ought to go ahead and believe in one anyway, in the absence of evidence."

I've never said this in any thread that exists anywhere in the known universe, yet I am accused of saying this at least once a day on this board.

I never said that the fact that we cannot detect God is a reason to believe in Him. I said it was non-conclusive either way. I've said this consistently and repeatedly. If theres some other language you folks would like me to say this in, let me know and I'll hire a translator.

"I can and do directly observe the specific content of my own thoughts."

Fine but they are not OBJECTIVELY observable, and therefore they are not provable with scientific certainty. I can observe God speaking to me, but this would not be considered proof by scientists that a conversation between myself and God has occured. Similarly, the fact that you observe your own thoughts is not proof that any of your thoughts have existed to anyone but yourself. From a scientific standpoint, the fact that you can observe your own thoughts does not prove to anyone but you they exist. It fails to meet the empirical criteria you demand of everything else you believe in. You know it through personal experience and nothing else. That is how I know God, but you would not accept that as evidence.

luvluv

Typhon:

"If god does not choose to be detected, and cannot be detected other than by choice, then there is nothing to say about god. There is no reason to suspect that he even exists at all. If you said after that line of reasoning, "thus, I assert nothing about god, neither his existence nor non-existence" I wouldn't have a problem with your statement. However, that is not the case. You go on to claim that he does exist."

Totally, utterly, demonstrably untrue. I say this over and over and over on this board and no one hears me.

I AM NOT SAYING THAT BECAUSE WE CAN'T DETECT GOD THAT GOD THEREFORE EXISTS.

I am saying it is not proof one way or the other. I do happen to believe in God but my belief has nothing to do with whether or not He is detectable in the universe.

The burden of proof is on you, I HAVE DRAWN NO CONCULSIONS ON GOD'S EXISTENCE FROM THE FACT THAT HE IS UNDETECTABLE.

"Again, it is also no grounds upon which to draw the conclusion that any such god exists at all. "

I never said it was. Are you clear on this now? How many times do I have to type it? I never said it was proof of anything. Ever. Never. Really. I swear. Can I stop answering this objection now? Please?

I don't see how any of the objections you make on the grounds of Christian theology are relevant. The only thing the Bible mentions existing before the universe are God and at least one other person, but that doesn't mean that is all there was. It is clear however that God existed before the universe was created. Therefore, he must not have been in the universe. In order to create the universe, there must have initially been no universe. But there was a God. Therefore God existed outside the universe.

"Space as we know it, the universe as we know it, was created as the universe itself was formed."

But if it was created, which is the hypothetical we are dealing with, then something must have created it, and that something would have existed outside of the universe that was "creating itself"

Briefly, you cannot detect the specifc content of my thoughts. If you can, I offer an open standing challenge for you to do so.

Also, plenty of people do believe in God without Him revealing Himself. In fact, most people on the planet do believe in a God.

Finally, it appears that you do not believe in a God, and I do believe in a God. But neither your disbelief nor my belief are in anyway affected by the fact that we can't detect God. So we agree, that the fact that we cannot detect God has no logical bearing on belief or disbelief. I only wish we could have discovered this sooner, it would have saved you a lot of typing and me a lot of reading.

The title of this thread is:

"Is not seeing good grounds for not believing."

It appears the concensus answer is no.

We agree, next thread....

[ April 10, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]

[ April 10, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

Typhon

Luvluv,

You refuse to answer any of my points and keep dodging them each time I point out the problems with your reasoning. You keep saying the burden of proof is on me, it's not, it's on you, the person making the statement that "god exists." READ what I say the first time, and I'll not have to keep saying the same things over, and over, and over again.

DID I say that? No, I did not. I said, YOU say, that god exists. Yes or No? Simple choice here.

I do not say you say that god exists BECAUSE he is undetectable. I'm the one that already believes god DOESN'T exist AND (no surprise) isn't detectable in the universe.

The burden of proof is on YOU luvluv. You are the one who professes that this thing, "god" exists. I'm a person that says, nope, don't think so, no reason to, why do you? You thus are the one who is required if you wish to seem more than just delusional, to offer up some valid reason why you think this god thing exists, despite the fact its presence isn't detectable or observable in the universe.

WHY do you believe? Another simple question here I'd like to see you honestly answer.

Please do, because that isn't and never has been, what I've asked you to answer. I grok that you don't believe in god based upon his non-presence. But you do profess to believe in god. So why, ESPECIALLY in light of your tacit admission (unless you're being untruthful here) that god is not observable in the physical universe, do you believe in god? And more importantly (if you care) why should we, who already don't believe in god, and agree with you that there is no tangible or supportable evidence for his presence in the universe, believe?

I'm waiting.

No, you are still wrong about god having to exist "outside" the universe to create it. Before it was created, it did not exist, and has no outside, inside, or any other dimension. Once it was created, there is nothing, not a word, to suggest that it existed "outside" of the space where god dwelled. If I build a sand castle in my living room, my living room and myself are not so much "outside" the sand castle as so much as the sand castle is inside my living room, or at least, coexisting with it in the greater space of my house.

I do not believe that the universe was "created." I believe it formed out of naturalistic consequences. Space as I stated is created by the expansion of the universe, not a void into which the universe expands.

I don't NEED to detect your specific thoughts like some magician to show that they exist. Did I stutter? I already explained this, in detail, several times over, and all you have done is hide from my questions. Prove that thoughts both exist and yet are not detectable (you haven't, if you think you have, please address my many, many points on the subject in my previous posts). I have already pointed out the difference between "magic" and objectively communicating and detecting thoughts. If you are unable to refute my points, just come out and say so, don't ignore them and act surprised when I have to say the same things again.

Then HOW do they believe in god? They either believe because they (unlike you) see his presence as detectable in the physical universe, or they believe he has revealed himself to others or to them through the means of these others. These would all fall under the category of revelation, of one sort or the other. And in fact, most people on the planet DO not believe in the same god or gods. Nor have they ever. Many, and in growing numbers, believe in no god at all.

By putting those two misleading sentences together, are you trying to imply that most people who believe in gods, do so without their gods having revealed themselves? If so, you are sadly misinformed.

What do you think, that most participants of the world's numerous and differing religions just wake up one day, without any previous exposure to their faith's teachings and indoctrination (which is comprised for most, of vigorously and virulently spreading the REVELATIONS of their deities and their go-betweens), and just suddenly like a bolt out of the blue, believe in a god?

How did you come to believe in god? I'd like to know the circumstances. Did they involve revelation, yours or otherwise, cultural indoctrination, naturalistic formation, observed evidence in the physical universe, or did you just sit bolt upright one day and come up with an otherwise unfounded concept of "god?"

No, sadly, we do NOT agree. Not believing in something that is not detected, is logical. I should not be expected nor required to believe in something that can not be shown to be there, without compelling evidence. Believing in something that is not detected or detectable, and without evidence of its existence, is illogical. That is why over and over, I remind you the burden of proof clearly lies with the claimant, not the unbeliever in this case.

That is because you do not listen or refuse to honestly face up to the challenges put to you by other posters critical to your position. The question was NEVER that simple, nor has the main part of discussion focused simply on the one sentence title of the thread.

If you want a simplistic answer to your simplistic query "Is not seeing good grounds for not believing" the answer is "yes" especially so, if you had no previous reason to believe in the first place.

I don't believe in god. The fact that I don't see any evidence of his existence may not be proof that he doesn't exist, but it certainly does not draw me from my initial position and if anything, makes me more confident that he does not.

.T.

[ April 10, 2002: Message edited by: Typhon ]</p>

Hondo

Originally posted by luvluv

Luvluv your statement cuts to the quick of your argument that a revealed god would take away our free will. The day I see Satan rampaging in the fashion related by the hallucinogenic depiction of Revelations, is the day I realize that the writings of the OT are not utter horse____. On that mythical day, god's revelation will be evident to all who have heard the word, my choice will be simple, god or Satan.

I would still have the free will to choose god, or rebel. Why does the revelation of god to the characters of the bible diminish their free will?
We should all certainly have the benefit of personal revelation. There would still be a necessary choice.

Why do some recieve the benefit of personal revelation and some not at all? If I die before the rapture will I have recieved the same benefits as those who are there to witness the event. Will I have recieved the same benefits as Moses, Adam, Eve, the prophets, and witnesses to other supposed supernatural interventions of god?

You state that Satan will be there to tempt those who have not had a chance to hear the gospel. This DOES NOT COMPUTE with a loving, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator. What are they? Lab rats in gods heinous experiment.

If your beautiful god was able to reveal himself to some cultures and languages, why not all equally across the globe?

Hondo

[ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: Hondo ]</p>

Datheron

Luvluv,

Interesting statement:

I know you're trying to avoid the old ad ignoratum fallacy, but I don't see how this advances your argument.

Given that we have tons of evidence that suggests that God does not operate in this world, what would make it conclusive that God does not exist? I will broaden the question further - what evidence is possible to show anything is conclusive at all? By your reasoning, the very fact that we have seen repeated behavior does not "prove" anything, but rather still renders a hypothesis made from the pattern inconclusive and invalid. By the same token (in that you're rejecting the negation), can I not reject the affirmative, and thus show that nothing can be conclusive?

Lemme give an example. You say that just because we have not detected God, it does not mean that he does not exist. I will turn around and say that just because you have detected God personally, does not mean that he exists. Even if we could all detect God, does not mean that he exists; we cannot conclusively show that he does by the virtue of your argument, in that we may be too technologically inferior to reduce God to some natural explanation (i.e. the God of Gaps). By the very same token that any negation can be dismissed, any affirmation can also be dismissed by the same grounds.

In the end, we cannot conclude anything. Kind of troublesome, isn't it?

HRG

Not to the possibility, but to the probability.
THat we do not detect a creator in this universe decreases any probability estimate that he exists, unless you are willing to argue a priori that the creator would never "appear" in a universe he created. or are already otherwise convinced that he exists. This is simple Bayesian inference; thus it is (non-compelling) evidence for his non-existence. A is evidence for B if the establishment of A increases the probability that B is true.

Let's define the following a priori probability estimates (all three non-zero, by assumption):

p-ED: Creator exists, detectable
p-EN: Creator exists, non-detectable
p-NO: Creator doesn't exist

p-ED + p-EN + p-NO = 1, and the total probability for a creator is p-ED + p-EN.

That we do not detect the Creator removes the possibility described by p-ED; thus the probability for his existence decreases to p-EN/(p-EN + p-NO). Quod erat demonstrandum ...
What is the difference between non-presence and non-detectability (see Sagan's Invisible Dragon in the Garage) ?

Regards,
HRG.

HRG

God is omnibenevolent if he worships himself ?
Why does knowledge of the existence of God implies that one will worship him ?
And why exactly should we be concerned about someone else's conception of the greatest good ?
[quote]
The greatest good in God's eyes is for his creation to have a relationship with him of their own free will. Could he have made humans who did not lie, cheat, steal without taking away their free will? I doubt it, but even if he could, he could not mandate their love for Him without infringing upon it. Our freely given love to Him is what the Christian God requires, and that cannot be achieved by making us omnibenevolent.
[quote]
So you argue that God's omnibenevolence is not omnibenevolence as defined by our language use, and the "greatest good" in his eyes is not the greatest good as we see it, and actually has very little connection with it. In this case, shouldn't you use different words - or perhaps invent new ones ?

Regards,
HRG.