Family Man

So because God has been defined in such a way that, if true, non-belief has consequences, he is momentous? And if the IPU is defined in such a way the belief in her has consequences then does she suddenly become momentous?

Same comment applies.

And why does this live, momentous, and forced argument strike me as a fancy way of saying that belief in God is justified because it is popular?

And what about Buddhism? Are their beliefs -- which don't include the God concept of Christianity -- live, momentous, and forced? After all, without proper karma, you could be reincarnated instead of being sent to nirvana, which has definite consequences.

In other words, it strikes me that other non-compatible beliefs also meet the criteria mentioned above, but I doubt that SOMMS and luv-luv takes them seriously. If not, then it would appear to me that this whole argument is another forced attempt to turn the God-concept into something that we're not supposed question instead of something that should be examined like another other idea.

K

SOMMS:

I never claimed that if God existed it wouldn't be momentous. I only said that astrology or channelling being true would be momentous as well.

As for forced, that's where I have a real problem. Calling a decision forced because it has consequences ONLY IF IT'S TRUE AND REGARDLESS OF THE LIKELIHOOD OF IT BEING TRUE seems an incredible stretch to me. If that is the case, we have an infinite number of FORCED decisions to make every day. For example:

Is there a group of renegade aliens from Alpha Centauri that are ready to destroy the earth unless all humans start wearing flower pots on our head?

Will I be hit by a meteor today unless I spin around until I puke?

Are earthworms trying read our minds so that they know how to take over the earth tomorrow and can they only be stopped by wearing suits of aluminum foil.

You can see that there are an infinite number of things that could have consequences for us if we don't make a decision about them today. Is it really realistic to call these decisions forced? If so, we have more decisions forced on us every day then we could possibly hope to make in a lifetime.

If a decision doesn't have PROBABLE consequences, then calling it forced is simply butchering the English language.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Family Man,
Uh...no. Please take a look at the original post (about 3/4 way down) to see these definitions. The issue 'God exists' would be momentous because there are huge ramifications if He does. The issue 'invisible pink unicorn exists' would not be momentous because there are no ramifications if it does.


I have no idea, perhaps you should read the entire thread first.

This really isn't an argument for God...it is a justification of faith.



Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K,
I guess if you feel these would be momentous then they are momentous to you. However, I think most would categorize heaven/hell as far more (read most) momentous than horoscopes.


Ok. The term 'forced' only indicates that if true...a decision must be made. This being the case, leprechauns, invisible pink unicorns and blue orbital rhinos (a kick back to Koy) are not forced.


Not really. Here is why...

And just for kicks let me and some of my own...

Is there an invisible pink unicorn who will gore me to death if I do not feed it gravel flavored ice-cream?

Is there a blue orbital rhino that will douse me in gasoline if I do not turn around 82 and half times reciting the broadway musical Cats?


Are these forced? Sure. If they are true we are in a world of hurt. However, none of these are live. We have no reason to think they might be true. We need make no decision about them.





Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Jamie_L

I did read the OP. Honest. I guess I just didn't "get" it, or maybe the fog of replies distracted me. At any rate, thanks for the patient explanation, luvluv.

Now, about forced, momentous, live beliefs. Can I come up with any that are really live? Well, certainly since we all know I'm making them up, they won't be live to any of us. However, L. Ron Hubbard came up with a great one. It's called Scientology.
Momentous: The souls of executed space aliens are trapped in our bodies, causing us psychological harm and leading to all bad things in our lives.
Forced: You need to get cleansed, or these guys will stay with you, continuing to harm you. No decision = deciding not to do anything.
Live: It may sound crazy to you and me, but LOTS of people believe it.

How about the Hale-Bopp Cultists:
Momentous: The space aliens coming behind the comet will take our souls to a better place, where we can be happy forever.
Forced: Kill yourself now, or you'll miss your chance. Once the comet's gone, so are the aliens.
Live: Clearly people believed it enough to kill themselves.

So, under James' arguement, these people are/were rational, and attempts by well-meaning friends who think they are being duped, mislead, manipulated are misplaced. These people are completely justified.

Yet, it just seems to me from these examples that it is dangerous to blindly assume that such momentous, forced things are correct. It doesn't sit right with me to say that such behavior is just as rational as testing the belief and seeking evidence to support it.

Jamie

Family Man

SOMMS -- I have read the whole thread. I'll thank you for not making gratitious insults. I don't think that you got my point, or prefer to ignore it.

God only has huge ramifications because he is defined that way. In essence, you're saying that because some ancient peoples came up with an idea that, if true, means eternal life (or any other significant event) that you're justified in believing it.

However, if the IPU is defined in such a way that it has huge ramifications (and lets assume sincerity here), that's not legitimate because, well, modern people thought it up. (Hint: Jamie's Scientology and Heaven Gate examples are much better ones, but I get ornery when people try to weasel out of things by claiming the other hasn't read something).

I am well aware that this is a justification for faith; it's just a piss-poor one.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Family Man,
Hey man...this was not meant as an insult. Please accept my apologies if that's how it seemed.



I am not making a statement for or against the legitimacy of 'invisible pink unicorn exists'. I'm just stating that this is not a forced or momentous (James' terms) issue in that if 'invisible pink unicorn exists' is true...you wouldn't have to make a decision about it (ie it would not be forced) and it also wouldn't matter if you did (ie it would not be momentous).

We can certainly change this situation...this is kinda where K and I are at in our conversation.

'Invisible pink unicorn exists and will kill you if you don't hop up and down 5 times in the next 10 minutes!'

This is certainly forced (you must make a decision if true) and momentous (if true you may die).



Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Family Man

Thank you.

Which is exactly the criticism that is being levelled at this argument. Whether or not something is momentous, forced, or live is completely arbitrary. The reason that it sounds good is that the concept of God has been around for a long time and has been quite popular (while the IPU is an admitted joke). But it is entirely possible that the God concept is a human invention -- just like Scientology, or Mormonism, or Heaven's Gate -- and hence no more vital. In short, the argument boils down to: "God is an old, cherished, and popular concept, and as such it is rational for us to believe in it." I would grant that that statement is true -- that it is rational to believe in it -- but not that that makes the belief rational.

K

SOMMS:

My point exactly. Being forced, as defined here, is a non-issue. What really matters is that the belief is live (the believer believes it). All of the things you and I listed would be momentous and forced. The only thing that separates them from this argument for God is the live part.

So, if someone can ignore reality and believe in an invisible pink unicorn who will gore him to death if he does not feed it gravel flavored ice-cream, is it rational to do so?

Jobar

THUS to SOMMS, and all those who claim that belief in the IPU is neither momentous nor forced! Beware, for the awful fate of being impaled on an Invisible Pink Spike awaits all unbelievers in Her!

And why is this so, you ask? Well, because I say it is. And just how is this different from the claim that belief in any other god(dess) is momentous and forced?