haverbob

Okay, I will be willing to do so, as as soon as you clearly define YOUR explanation of the world. I need a robust definition as well. Sound fair??? Give me the "robust definition" of what YOU think because that's all I need also. Is it infinite origin??? Is it the rabbit in the hat?? Is it snarfs podinkle??? That's all that I've been trying to say and I think you just acknowledge my words by saying "oh yeah... well you prove it first". Just as pointless as you think I may be trying to be. In your expertise, you have still failed to give me a better story book than God. I told you what I was doing here and you are not really responding to what you know I am doing here. I gotta' go to bed, talk to you soon.

haverbob

I almost didn't want to even bother with this post, and if you haven't read all prior posts, please do so.

So tell me YOUR story of the truth bright boy. I apologize if I don't respond quickly, I'm going to bed, but I will definetely try to get to later (assuming you say something credible).

mosaic

haverbob, you that athiest offer no better explanation. O. Do you think the relgious explanation and all the nonsense that follows from it is better? A thery of origin is an imaginative thing, and fine as that but when it becomes claim to some universal meaning to life there is a problem. Athiests( I'm not one.more agnostic) need not enter into some artificial discussion of origins to give meaning to their life and this is what theology does. It really doesnt try to explain origin as it projects on this origin "meaning" and reasons to live. This is why I think your claim that athiests offer no better conlcusion superflous. It stems more from a need to project meaning onto matter itself rather than a genuine logical, scientific objection. Science says nothing about god. Meaning demands we say something about it. Which is why science seems inadequate on theries of origin.

mosaic

Exactly what I'm saying. You're not going to find some scientific formula whose answer is meaning, and thats what you're looking for.

Clutch

bob, I don't have a single explanation of "the world". In general I take the received views of our best science as my pro tem explanations of phenomena. You can get the relevant definitions from science texts. You're being silly here. I've answered these questions, besides explaining, in detail, more than once, why they represent a dubious trilemma. Well, I asked you what you have in mind by your God "story book", but you just evaded with some pissyness. Perhaps you should make clear what you mean by "a better story book" as well -- better in what respects?Honestly, it's not remotely clear to me what you're doing here. I'm trying to understand, though.

haverbob

Of course not and if you read this thread carefully, you will see that I never bothered to say something silly like that[/quote]
No, that is not what I'm looking for because I already know science can't do this (although it was interesting to see some responses reach as far as to suggest that things appear out of thin air with no origin or cause. I'll make it short for you. Atheists commonly say, "I do not believe in God" or even "there is no God". They rarely say "maybe there is a God, maybe there isn't, I don't know" In my opinion, the latter would be more accurate but there always seems to be this embarrassment to say the "maybe there is" part. When someone is sure that there isn't, then I think "surely they must have some good answer to the question if they are so sure there isn't a God". Apparently, I was wrong. That's all that was going on here. I was just trying to see if everyone had much better answers then "God", but it doesn't appear that they do. Before you go in to the silliness of the Bible, read my original post to see how I chose to represent God for the sake of this discussion. I kept very vague and general. Just as vague as the atheistic point of view which says "I don't need to tell theists what is right, I just need to tell them that they are wrong because what is right is...uh....mmm....I don't know, but at least I don't know". Well congrats.

haverbob

Hey Clutch.
Originally posted by haverbob
Okay, I will be willing to do so, as as soon as you clearly define YOUR explanation of the world. I need a robust definition as well. Sound fair??? Give me the "robust definition" of what YOU think because that's all I need also.


All I was doing was just responding to what YOU said. YOU said "As for the painful admission that there might be a god: all I need is a robust definition". That's fine. Of course I can understand why you think that way and OF COURSE you will not get a robust definition from me. So then I think, "well maybe Clutch has the right ideas, because I can't give a robust definition" So then I say, "okay Clutch, I might be willing to agree with you and say that there is no God if you are willing to give ME a robust definition of what YOU believe created everything". The basic point is that it works both ways, it's just rare that theists examine the thinking of atheists. Instead, most stupidly yell "FAITH" or they tell you that you're going to hell (a silly waste of time).
Well okay, I won't evade (although I didn't think I was). If you read the first post of this thread you will see that I would never be stupid enough to describe God and I gave a reason why. As soon as somone points to an entity that has no beginning, we immediately find ourselves outside the realm of reason. There's nothing one can do about that just as there is nothing that you can do about the trillema you pointed to. So this whole God-no God decision ultimately falls out of reason on both sides. There are other reasons going on for someone to be an atheist and someone to be a theist, but ultimately it's not "reason". On the theist side, it is "need". On the atheist side, it is "pride".
Well okay. I'll try again. Here is what I said to Taamalus in an earlier post in this thread. I thought I've been yelling my purpose in here but maybe not very clearly. Sorry.

Also, here is an article that I liked on this site. Maybe you will too (assuming you haven't already read it.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ill/w_why.html

fishbulb

The first and last statements are hardly mutually exclusive. I don't believe in the Loch Ness monster, but that doesn't mean that I know that there is no such thing; it simply means that I have seen nothing to convince me that it does, and that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is sensible to conclude that a thing doesn't exist.

You've tried to suggest that we must accept an either-or scenario: either there is a god or the Universe is infinite (or comes from an infinite chain of existent entities). That is a false dilemma. Not only is there no reason to suppose that those are the only two possibilities, there would appear to be no way to define either of those possibilities in a way that even makes sense; both rely on leaving important concepts undefined, and niether one solves the fundamental problems allegedly posed by the other. Thus, it is not a question of choosing between two equally likely alternatives; it is a question of taking a position that cannot be clearly defined, let alone defended, or taking the position that any particular hypothesis is, without evidence to support it, much more likely to be false than true.

Atheists infrequently explicitly say, "maybe there is a God, maybe there isn't, I don't know," but for most people, lack of certain knowledge is implied. Someone who argues that he knows for a fact there exists no transcendent god runs into the same problem as someone who argues that he knows for a fact that there does exist a transcendent god. There are indeed people who assert both these positions, but I am not too sure where you are looking to find them in such great quantity.

haverbob

That was a very thoughtful and reasonable response. However consider the words to that Rush song (forget which one), "if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice". I know you probably already agree with that. If you consider the title of this thread and re-read my first post, you will see that I know that I will never describe or prove God. I was merely saying that I can rationalize my belief in God and here is how. I rationalized it by saying nobody has a better answer for me and I don't think that I HAVE been given one.

Maybe you might say that "no answer" is a better answer, but that is just a mere opinion, and of course, if by some strange chance there ended up being a God, you would agree that you could "possibly" be in a difficult situation at that point. If there ended up being "no God", then I'll never know it obviously because my life ends right there upon death. So it seems as though I choose something that makes me happy and you appear to be more focused on being "right" and of course you will never be "proven" right, you can only be proven wrong in the condition that you experience an afterlife. You may say, that you also chose something that makes you happy, I think you chose something that makes you "right" first and foremost and then if there's some room for happiness after the "right" has been satisfied, then great. Happiness is not your primary goal. Being "right" is your primary goal. And you will insist upon being "right" even if it's at the expense of your happiness. Wouldn't you agree??

Anyway, if you can prove that "no answer" is better, then I will listen. Read the part in the first post where I said that I realize that I may be kidding myself. Of course I could be. Imagine tackling an issue like this??? But I said, "what the hell, I'll give it a shot". Hell it's a philosophy forum. I think that at least I managed to present the only way that a belief in God's existence can be remotely rationalized and of course I will acknowledge and emphasize the word "remotely". I still don't think it's any more remote than anyone else's beliefs or choices.

fishbulb

I suppose, but that is a red herring. Don't confuse making a decision with drawing a conclusion. I don't choose to believe or not believe something; the evidence leads me to one particular conclusion or another. Naturally, it is possible for me to unconsciously fool myself or for my prejudices and desires to lead me to unconsciously ignore or improperly weight certain evidence, but I do not consciously make a decision to believe or disbelieve something.

That is, you are saying that if we are given an apparent choice of several possibilities and no good way to distinguish between them, we should feel free to believe the one we would most like to be true. Is that right?

If so, that is a natural enough reaction, but it is self-deception, pure and simple. Wanting something to be true has no bearing on it actually being true. Have you considered that it is most likely that the real explanation is one that no one has ever thought of? The fact that none of the explanations that are conventionally offered can be supported empirically (or, arguably, are even satisfactory explanations at all) is not evidence that they are all equally good, but rather evidence that they are all probably wrong.

I would never have thought that you would make Pascal's Wager. What if it turns out that god does exist but he is the wrong god and he has decided to condemn everyone who believed in a false god (but not those who did not believe at all) to eternal torment? Oops.

I do not choose what I believe. My beliefs are a consequence of a complex interaction of facts, events, conditions, and other things. Conscious choice plays a role only to the extent that I consciously choose to make my best effort to be scrupulous and honest in evaluating the evidence.