Theists: Please give me a reason to believe in your superpowered invisible overlord

[Slowvehicle]

Is this a summation of your 6,600 posts? Thank you for being such a diligent watchdog for humanity; however, I humbly submit that your time may have been better spent focusing on your job, family, or real friends.

Why, no, not really.

Sometimes I try to be funny.

Sometimes I comment on poor scriptural interpretation.

Sometimes I point out,and make repair suggestions about, crepuscular logic, faulty reasoning, and opinion-disguised-as-"fact".

Occasionally, I keep the "E" in JREF.

I do spend a great deal of time correcting superstition and ignorance, and a certain amount of time opposing injustice.

I wonder if you might present your credentials?

I venture to surmise that someone as superstition-haunted as your what-turned-out-not-to-be-a-poor-attempt-at-humor-but-was-instead-a-doxology demonstrates you to be; and as ignorant of current scientific theories as your attempts to denigrate expansion cosmology, biopoesis, and evolution demonstrate you to be, has a great deal of self-education and self-realization to do before I might even begin to consider their advice about how to spend my time.

I wonder if it has escaped your attention that you, too, are here?

I will share your kind concerns with my partner, though.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Unicorns were believed to be quite real in the natural history studies of many cultures, from the ancient Greeks up through the 18th century. In fact, there has been considerable overlap between unicorns and Christianity, as unicorns are mentioned in the Bible and appear in religious iconography from the middle ages. Horned ungulates certainly exist, as do single-horned herbivores, and a rare genetic mutation can result in deer with a single central horn.

Also, unicorns are a far better basis for morality than God. Especially the purple talking kind.

Right.

Very few instances of unicorns destroying almost all living things on the planet out of petulance and spite; very few legends of unicorns directing their chosen minions to destroy entire populations, except for the girls young enough to keep as sex slaves; very few self-serving explanations about how unicorns love you enough that they will be willing to "save" you from what they will do to you if you don't love them back enough to let them "save" you.

 

[Stone]

In what way does this support belief in a god or gods?

I've already answered this question: This 12-part study provides circumstantial evidence -- not proof -- for a real deity of some kind. That is because paradigms for greater social inclusiveness for the hitherto left-out help sustain any socialized species, including humanity. And since ever-increasing inclusiveness interacts practically and positively with reality -- there are other creatures around one, with whom it's worthwhile to be amicable -- it's of relevance to know just what sorts of urges lie behind such ever-expanding paradigms in the first place. We can answer that question: Those urges always involve an autonomous counter-cultural introduction of some new take on deity. Why?

We don't know the answer, yet. But to dismiss such recurring patterns altogether is the height of idiocy. Whether due to some recurring delusional pattern in the human brain, or to some weird dimension of metaphysical reality that is as real in its way as the presence of fellow creatures, this pattern behind altruistic paradigms does exist, and so far, interdisciplinary researchers have been too lazy and/or cowardly to analyze just why. When we know a lot more about the human brain, that will be the time for just this analysis.

You know, we're going round and round in circles here, because I've not been given the green light to provide here the kind of documented recent analyses on brain patterns that are presented in the 12-part study, the historical cultural patterns related to the history of (private/individual) unbelief, the historical cultural patterns related to the history of (private/individual) belief, the newest field work on group selection, the comparisons of walking one's talk or not walking it from pioneer to pioneer, etc. This is an honest attempt to analyze human behavior as something for which we have concrete records, rather than spew generalizations out of confirmation bias that so often clutter up both arguments for theism and for atheism.

I was under the initial impression that you were really curious as to the availability of something more solid than the usual knee-jerk screeds. Now, I'm not offering proof here, and I've never pretended I am. But I am offering what appears to me a more solid sequence of data than anything yet offered towards showing the presence of some sort of extra-human force intricately involved in the inspiration of altruistic human behavior. It's strictly circumstantial evidence only, not proof. But it's circumstantial evidence of a quality clearly superior to anything that's usually trotted out by typical theist woo-heads.

I admit I don't see why circumstantial evidence is such a laugh. O.K., so circumstantial evidence is not proof. You know: I never said it is. And I also never said this 12-part study is proof. If you're only interested in proof, then there's no reason to continue with this exchange at all. But if you're interested in the only argument I know that renders the supposition of deity (whether a deity or deities) somewhat more likely than not, then we can continue. I know of no other argument that is as plausible as this one.

In fact, I'm profoundly underwhelmed with all other arguments in favor of deity that are out there. Furthermore, I wouldn't suffer a single qualm if something emerged to make me go back to being an agnostic or an atheist. Fine. No problem. Bottom line: If there's anything I know of that renders the supposition of deity something more than ludicrous, it's the historical and cerebral patterns detailed in this study. If you're interested in observing these patterns, we can proceed. If you're not, we won't.

So are we interested in unwrapping the details behind this argument, or are you less interested than I thought in inquiring into any plausible arguments for deity that are out there? Sure, crude one-upsmanship can be a bit of a lark for a while, and I'm perfectly good at keeping this up just as long as you. But you're indulging this in a vacuum, since you still don't know half the stuff that's in the study (maybe you don't want to know). But after a bit, one-upsmanship gets awfully boring for the readers.

I've now answered your question as to why this study might point to the plausibility of some sort of deity after all, twice. So there's no further point in answering the question again without presenting the guts of the study. At a certain point, an answer like this in a vacuum ceases to be of any practical value at all. That's why it's time to either present the balance of the study in full, or just drop this exchange altogether.

Your move,

Stone

 

[punshhh]

I've already answered this question: This 12-part study provides circumstantial evidence -- not proof -- for a real deity of some kind. That is because paradigms for greater social inclusiveness for the hitherto left-out help sustain any socialized species, including humanity. And since ever-increasing inclusiveness interacts practically and positively with reality -- there are other creatures around one, with whom it's worthwhile to be amicable -- it's of relevance to know just what sorts of urges lie behind such ever-expanding paradigms in the first place. We can answer that question: Those urges always involve an autonomous counter-cultural introduction of some new take on deity. Why?

We don't know the answer, yet. But to dismiss such recurring patterns altogether is the height of idiocy. Whether due to some recurring delusional pattern in the human brain, or to some weird dimension of metaphysical reality that is as real in its way as the presence of fellow creatures, this pattern behind altruistic paradigms does exist, and so far, interdisciplinary researchers have been too lazy and/or cowardly to analyze just why. When we know a lot more about the human brain, that will be the time for just this analysis.

You know, we're going round and round in circles here, because I've not been given the green light to provide here the kind of documented recent analyses on brain patterns that are presented in the 12-part study, the historical cultural patterns related to the history of (private/individual) unbelief, the historical cultural patterns related to the history of (private/individual) belief, the newest field work on group selection, the comparisons of walking one's talk or not walking it from pioneer to pioneer, etc. This is an honest attempt to analyze human behavior as something for which we have concrete records, rather than spew generalizations out of confirmation bias that so often clutter up both arguments for theism and for atheism.

I was under the initial impression that you were really curious as to the availability of something more solid than the usual knee-jerk screeds. Now, I'm not offering proof here, and I've never pretended I am. But I am offering what appears to me a more solid sequence of data than anything yet offered towards showing the presence of some sort of extra-human force intricately involved in the inspiration of altruistic human behavior. It's strictly circumstantial evidence only, not proof. But it's circumstantial evidence of a quality clearly superior to anything that's usually trotted out by typical theist woo-heads.

I admit I don't see why circumstantial evidence is such a laugh. O.K., so circumstantial evidence is not proof. You know: I never said it is. And I also never said this 12-part study is proof. If you're only interested in proof, then there's no reason to continue with this exchange at all. But if you're interested in the only argument I know that renders the supposition of deity (whether a deity or deities) somewhat more likely than not, then we can continue. I know of no other argument that is as plausible as this one.

In fact, I'm profoundly underwhelmed with all other arguments in favor of deity that are out there. Furthermore, I wouldn't suffer a single qualm if something emerged to make me go back to being an agnostic or an atheist. Fine. No problem. Bottom line: If there's anything I know of that renders the supposition of deity something more than ludicrous, it's the historical and cerebral patterns detailed in this study. If you're interested in observing these patterns, we can proceed. If you're not, we won't.

So are we interested in unwrapping the details behind this argument, or are you less interested than I thought in inquiring into any plausible arguments for deity that are out there? Sure, crude one-upsmanship can be a bit of a lark for a while, and I'm perfectly good at keeping this up just as long as you. But you're indulging this in a vacuum, since you still don't know half the stuff that's in the study (maybe you don't want to know). But after a bit, one-upsmanship gets awfully boring for the readers.

I've now answered your question as to why this study might point to the plausibility of some sort of deity after all, twice. So there's no further point in answering the question again without presenting the guts of the study. At a certain point, an answer like this in a vacuum ceases to be of any practical value at all. That's why it's time to either present the balance of the study in full, or just drop this exchange altogether.

Your move,

Stone

it is common for folk to conflate proof with evidence around here. It makes it easy to defend their positions because proof is very hard to convey outside mathematics. You won't find much philosophical consideration either.

 

[punshhh]

Really ? When is he not ?

The concept of god is embellished by many personal details peculiar to each person, or group of persons, using it. These embellishments are not what the concept represents, it represents an entity which is in some way the origin of the existence we know. Whether this entity is out there(exists), or not is another issue.

 

[punshhh]

Unless and until you present objective, concrete, practical, empirical evidence that 'god', a "god', your version of 'god', or any 'gods', it is, in fact, a completely imaginary entity; no more "real", or less imaginary, than The Unicorn, or the pixies in your silverware drawer, or Terran Ambassador Plenipotentiary Jame Retief, or 'Squatch.

I eagerly await your evidence (concrete, practical, empirical, physical, objective evidence) that any 'god' exists (much less the vengeful, incompetent, tantrum-throwing, praise-hungry, inconsistent spoiled child of the xian bible...).

We only know what exists (group of objects A) through what we are able to detect with our inherited senses and abilities and the tools these have enabled us to develop. Anything else which exists (group of objects B) is beyond our capability to detect. The philosophical concept of God/god is an intellectual object representing an object/entity which may or may not be present in group (B), but which would, if it is present, be a necessity for the existence of our known world.

 

[punshhh]

Philosophical objects are not required to be non-imaginary, so defining it as an object says nothing about whether it is imaginary or not.

Of course, such objects may be imaginary, but also may not. They may be an intellectual concept used to represent an existing (outside the mind) object.

Pastafarians rely on the misconception that all conceptual objects are imaginary and cannot represent any existing objects other than what is described by science. As such objects (objects not described by science) must obviously be entirely imaginary, just like the Invisible Pink Unicorn in my garage. This is a fallacious and naive line of thought.

It is as if someone claimed that they saw a red apple and you responded that apples cant' be red, they are fruits, and as such must be fruits no matter what you think you ate.

This doesn't represent the position, perhaps you can clarify.

 

[ehcks]

We only know what exists (group of objects A) through what we are able to detect with our inherited senses and abilities and the tools these have enabled us to develop. Anything else which exists (group of objects B) is beyond our capability to detect. The philosophical concept of God/god is an intellectual object representing an object/entity which may or may not be present in group (B), but which would, if it is present, be a necessity for the existence of our known world.

There have been many things that we were unable to detect, that we later became able to detect, by increasing our capability. Anything in this universe that has an affect on anything else in this universe can eventually be detected through an increase in our capability. To say that something can never be detected is to say it either does not exist, or that it does not have any impact on the universe.

And to define something as necessary for existence before showing a single point of evidence that it does or even could exist is meaningless.

 

[Belz...]

The concept of god is embellished by many personal details peculiar to each person, or group of persons, using it. These embellishments are not what the concept represents, it represents an entity which is in some way the origin of the existence we know. Whether this entity is out there(exists), or not is another issue.

This does not answer the question.

Please name one non-imaginary god.

 

[punshhh]

There have been many things that we were unable to detect, that we later became able to detect, by increasing our capability. Anything in this universe that has an affect on anything else in this universe can eventually be detected through an increase in our capability. To say that something can never be detected is to say it either does not exist, or that it does not have any impact on the universe.

I am not saying that there is something that can never be detected, in principle. Only that humanity has a limited capacity to detect. Unfortunately it cannot be determined to what extent we have failed to detect things, or in what direction undetected things might be found etc etc.

And to define something as necessary for existence before showing a single point of evidence that it does or even could exist is meaningless.

It is not meaningless, it is a philosophical tool. Scientists do something similar in their contemplation of the implied singularity. Also we do not know what it means to exist, or what is required for existence of any kind.

 

[punshhh]

This does not answer the question.

Ok, god is not imaginary when it is not imagined, but regarded as existing.

Please name one non-imaginary god.

The one which deeply religious or spiritual people believe in.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

I am not saying that there is something that can never be detected, in principle. Only that humanity has a limited capacity to detect. Unfortunately it cannot be determined to what extent we have failed to detect things, or in what direction undetected things might be found etc etc.

Question...

If we do somehow develop better tools and find evidence that God exists - exists in the sense that he is composed of a certain type of matter or energy that we can detect and interacts with the world via mundane physical laws - would he still meet the definition of God?

IOW, if God is stripped of supernatural existence and is found to be of natural origins and qualities, how would that set him apart from any other "thing" that exists in the natural world?

I think it would have been cool if when we had finally mapped the Cosmic Backround Radiation, we had seen "I DID THIS! - GOD" in ancient Hebrew woven into the fabric of the early universe. I recall even Carl Sagan in Contact imagined a similar "signature" of a creator waiting to be discovered. Even Steven Hawking could not resist "The Face of God" metaphor.

But in the absence of evidence, superimposing a purely imaginary and speculative power or force as the root of all being remains wishful thinking.

Or so I believe!

 

[RoboTimbo]

it is common for folk to conflate proof with evidence around here.

Indeed, look at the embarrassing error this person made:

The fact that people have believed in gods is not evidence for the existence of gods.

Not proof you mean.

 

[RoboTimbo]

As such objects (objects not described by science) must obviously be entirely imaginary, just like the Invisible Pink Unicorn in my garage.

No, it was shown in another thread that the IPU and fairies were no more imaginary than any gods.

This is a fallacious and naive line of thought.

Actually, if you hadn't run away from the thread, you may have learned something. Claiming one imaginary being may exist while another may not is simplistic thinking of a very low and common sort.

 

[tsig]

Is this a summation of your 6,600 posts? Thank you for being such a diligent watchdog for humanity; however, I humbly submit that your time may have been better spent focusing on your job, family, or real friends.

You don't have a job, family or friends?

 

[tsig]

I've already answered this question: This 12-part study provides circumstantial evidence -- not proof -- for a real deity of some kind. That is because paradigms for greater social inclusiveness for the hitherto left-out help sustain any socialized species, including humanity. And since ever-increasing inclusiveness interacts practically and positively with reality -- there are other creatures around one, with whom it's worthwhile to be amicable -- it's of relevance to know just what sorts of urges lie behind such ever-expanding paradigms in the first place. We can answer that question: Those urges always involve an autonomous counter-cultural introduction of some new take on deity. Why?

We don't know the answer, yet. But to dismiss such recurring patterns altogether is the height of idiocy. Whether due to some recurring delusional pattern in the human brain, or to some weird dimension of metaphysical reality that is as real in its way as the presence of fellow creatures, this pattern behind altruistic paradigms does exist, and so far, interdisciplinary researchers have been too lazy and/or cowardly to analyze just why. When we know a lot more about the human brain, that will be the time for just this analysis.

You know, we're going round and round in circles here, because I've not been given the green light to provide here the kind of documented recent analyses on brain patterns that are presented in the 12-part study, the historical cultural patterns related to the history of (private/individual) unbelief, the historical cultural patterns related to the history of (private/individual) belief, the newest field work on group selection, the comparisons of walking one's talk or not walking it from pioneer to pioneer, etc. This is an honest attempt to analyze human behavior as something for which we have concrete records, rather than spew generalizations out of confirmation bias that so often clutter up both arguments for theism and for atheism.

I was under the initial impression that you were really curious as to the availability of something more solid than the usual knee-jerk screeds. Now, I'm not offering proof here, and I've never pretended I am. But I am offering what appears to me a more solid sequence of data than anything yet offered towards showing the presence of some sort of extra-human force intricately involved in the inspiration of altruistic human behavior. It's strictly circumstantial evidence only, not proof. But it's circumstantial evidence of a quality clearly superior to anything that's usually trotted out by typical theist woo-heads.

I admit I don't see why circumstantial evidence is such a laugh. O.K., so circumstantial evidence is not proof. You know: I never said it is. And I also never said this 12-part study is proof. If you're only interested in proof, then there's no reason to continue with this exchange at all. But if you're interested in the only argument I know that renders the supposition of deity (whether a deity or deities) somewhat more likely than not, then we can continue. I know of no other argument that is as plausible as this one.

In fact, I'm profoundly underwhelmed with all other arguments in favor of deity that are out there. Furthermore, I wouldn't suffer a single qualm if something emerged to make me go back to being an agnostic or an atheist. Fine. No problem. Bottom line: If there's anything I know of that renders the supposition of deity something more than ludicrous, it's the historical and cerebral patterns detailed in this study. If you're interested in observing these patterns, we can proceed. If you're not, we won't.

So are we interested in unwrapping the details behind this argument, or are you less interested than I thought in inquiring into any plausible arguments for deity that are out there? Sure, crude one-upsmanship can be a bit of a lark for a while, and I'm perfectly good at keeping this up just as long as you. But you're indulging this in a vacuum, since you still don't know half the stuff that's in the study (maybe you don't want to know). But after a bit, one-upsmanship gets awfully boring for the readers.

I've now answered your question as to why this study might point to the plausibility of some sort of deity after all, twice. So there's no further point in answering the question again without presenting the guts of the study. At a certain point, an answer like this in a vacuum ceases to be of any practical value at all. That's why it's time to either present the balance of the study in full, or just drop this exchange altogether.

Your move,

Stone

IOW morals come from god, we have morals therefor god.

 

[tsig]

We only know what exists (group of objects A) through what we are able to detect with our inherited senses and abilities and the tools these have enabled us to develop. Anything else which exists (group of objects B) is beyond our capability to detect. The philosophical concept of God/god the IPU is an intellectual object representing an object/entity which may or may not be present in group (B), but which would, if it is present, be a necessity for the existence of our known world.

FTFY

 

[tsig]

Of course, such objects may be imaginary, but also may not. They may be an intellectual concept used to represent an existing (outside the mind) object.
Pastafarians rely on the misconception that all conceptual objects are imaginary and cannot represent any existing objects other than what is described by science. As such objects (objects not described by science) must obviously be entirely imaginary, just like the Invisible Pink Unicorn in my garage. This is a fallacious and naive line of thought.
This doesn't represent the position, perhaps you can clarify.

If it's outside the mind it can't be an intellectual concept.

The concept of god is a product of a mind stuck in a childish frame of mind that can't conceive of life without a Daddy.

 

[punshhh]

Question...

If we do somehow develop better tools and find evidence that God exists - exists in the sense that he is composed of a certain type of matter or energy that we can detect and interacts ethnic the world via mundane physical laws - would he still meet the definition of God?

Only if as an entity God were shown to be responsible for, the origin of, the existence of the physical matter/energy we know.

IOW, if God is stripped of supernatural existence and is found to be of natural origins and qualities, how would that set him apart from any other "thing" that exists in the natural world?

Firstly I don't recognise the distinction of supernatural, as fundamentally different from natural. Surely supernatural refers to natural events not as yet understood. Bearing this in mind, I would say that the difference would be in its agency, ie it is the origin of our known world.

I think it would have been cool if when we had finally mapped the Cosmic Backround Radiation, we had seen "I DID THIS! - GOD" in ancient Hebrew woven into the fabric of the early universe. I recall even Carl Sagan in Contact imagined a similar "signature" of a creator waiting to be discovered. Even Steven Hawking could not resist "The Face of God" metaphor.

Quite so.

But in the absence of evidence, superimposing a purely imaginary and speculative power or force as the root of all being remains wishful thinking.

Firstly there is a lot of evidence,... which falls under the heading of anecdotes. Secondly it is not a purely imaginary power or force, it is intellectually derived, via philosophy.

Or so I believe!

I would be careful what I choose to believe, if I were you.

 

[punshhh]

If it's outside the mind it can't be an intellectual concept.

If its outside the mind, it can be discussed, this goes on with scientifically described objects all the time.

The concept of god is a product of a mind stuck in a childish frame of mind that can't conceive of life without a Daddy.

Perhaps, in some cases.