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

[Fast Eddie B]

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

Veiled reference to Pascal's Wager, perhaps?

 

[Belz...]

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

Even if he doesn't actually exist ?

The one which deeply religious or spiritual people believe in.

That is not an answer: name a god which actually exists.

 

[Dr. Keith]

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.

OK, so why did you point out that god is considered a philosophical object to counter a claim that god is imaginary? Please elaborate.

 

[Dr. Keith]

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

If existence is to have any meaning it can not be contingent on the regard of an observer.

If god requires an observer to regard it as existing in order to exist, then god may as well be Tinker Bell or Santa Clause.

 

[Slowvehicle]

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.

'god' must exist because the existence of 'god' is "necessary" for the existence of observable reality?

This is where you trot out your evidence, right?

 

[Dr. Keith]

Why, no, not really.

Sometimes I try to be funny.

But if we're being honest, you're better at making chile. At least I have to hope so.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Ok, god is not imaginary when it is not imagined, but regarded as existing.
The one which deeply religious or spiritual people believe in.

In what way do you think equivocating the process of imagining 'god', or a 'god', or any 'gods' (even apophatic 'gods') to exist, without the first scintilla of evidence, by calling it "regarding it as existing" (without the first scintilla of evidence)?

As well say it is not imaginary because you "assume" its existence, or "postulate" its existence, or "pretend to" its existence--you are still claiming existence for something without any evidence at all.

How is that a reason to believe in it?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Please name one non-imaginary god.

The one which deeply religious or spiritual people believe in.

One of these things is just like the other. How is a 'god' that is "believed" in, without any evidence (and, in fact, in the face of evidence to the contrary), NOT imaginary? Do you suppose it exists just because of beleivers' faith?

 

[Slowvehicle]

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

...even if we have to lie about, or deceive ourselves about, its existence...

 

[Slowvehicle]

<snip>

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

I, personally, am, which is why I DO NOT believe in 'god', a 'god', the apophatic 'gods', nor any other 'gods'.

Thanks.

 

[Slowvehicle]

But if we're being honest, you're better at making chile. At least I have to hope so.

You should taste my Green Chile Cheese Enchiladas, or my Coconut Curry Risoto...

 

[Stone]

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

Morals _may_ come from some deity or other. Meta-ethics/social-ethics do clearly come from the unique personal experiences of a relatively small handful of gutsy individuals who can be counted on maybe four hands. If one is interested in analyzing those personal individuals' experiences in depth, one is approaching this in the proper scientific spirit. If one is not interested, then one is just a faith-head. Right now, we're just slinging blanket assertions at each other without the leeway to back them up.

Stone

 

[Stone]

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

I would guess that it's energy, probably, since that arguably has easier access to the human brain. But again, that's strictly a guess.

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 see no sensible objection to the supposition that what history's ethical pioneers have personally named "deity" could well be of "natural origins and qualities". Consequently, I'm not uncomfortable with any disclosure that nothing sets deity "apart from any other "thing" that exists in the natural world" either. In fact, some of the ethical pioneers I've referenced are already comfortable with a concept of deity as concurrent with the cosmos and not anterior to it. This is why the whole argument about a First Cause bores me utterly. Scientists today have already initiated certain concepts that accommodate the notion of spontaneous generation handily. So a creator is not needed. So any deity need not be involved with creation at all. If a deity exists at all, it is more likely that it is involved with mammalian ethics rather than cosmic generation. That's what history's paper trail suggests.

Stone

 

[Slowvehicle]

Morals _may_ come from some deity or other. Meta-ethics/social-ethics do clearly come from the unique personal experiences of a relatively small handful of gutsy individuals who can be counted on maybe four hands. If one is interested in analyzing those personal individuals' experiences in depth, one is approaching this in the proper scientific spirit. If one is not interested, then one is just a faith-head. Right now, we're just slinging blanket assertions at each other without the leeway to back them up.

Stone

Unless and until the existence of any kind of "deity or other" is demonstrated, with evidence, it is amusingly incorrect to claim that "Morals _may_ come from some deity or other."

It would not be not possible for morals to "come from" something that does not exist; the claim that "[m]orals _may_ come from some deity or other" is not the least bit credible, without demonstrating the existence of whichever deity from which it is supposed, by the credulous, that morals "come from".

Since morals (and ethics, and mores, and customs, and socially-variant ideas of "right" and "wrong") can be demonstrated to exist; while no "deity" has ever been demonstrated to exist, your sortie fails at the first fence.

You are, as always, encouraged to provide evidence (practical, empirical, objective evidence) of the existence of a "deity". That would still leave you with an uphill, root-grown, and stony row to hoe, demonstrating that "morals" "come from" that particular "deity". Your next hurdle would be to explain how societies that "knew not your 'deity' " somehow still managed to have morals (and ethics, and mores, and culturally-variant ideas of "right" and "wrong"...).

 

[Vortigern99]

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

Altruism is a selective trait. It's beneficial to many species from an evolutionary perspective. That's the evidential , scientific answer to your purported mystery.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/

Here's just one paragraph from the above link:

Altruistic behaviour is common throughout the animal kingdom, particularly in species with complex social structures. For example, vampire bats regularly regurgitate blood and donate it to other members of their group who have failed to feed that night, ensuring they do not starve. In numerous bird species, a breeding pair receives help in raising its young from other ‘helper’ birds, who protect the nest from predators and help to feed the fledglings. Vervet monkeys give alarm calls to warn fellow monkeys of the presence of predators, even though in doing so they attract attention to themselves, increasing their personal chance of being attacked. In social insect colonies (ants, wasps, bees and termites), sterile workers devote their whole lives to caring for the queen, constructing and protecting the nest, foraging for food, and tending the larvae. Such behaviour is maximally altruistic: sterile workers obviously do not leave any offspring of their own—so have personal fitness of zero—but their actions greatly assist the reproductive efforts of the queen.​

There are numerous such treatises on the 'net, each offering insight into a well-documented and studied phenomenon which you seem to prefer to lay at the feet of a supernatural power.

You can post whatever you like, it's not up to me to "green light" anything you have to say. If my opinion has any influence at all, I'd like to encourage you to use fewer words to make your treatises more readable and accessible.

But your appeals to deity as the force driving altruistic behaviors are weak, when viewed in the light of biological fact. That's not "crude one-upsmanship", it's science.

 

[Stone]

Altruism is a selective trait. It's beneficial to many species from an evolutionary perspective. That's the evidential , scientific answer to your purported mystery.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/

Here's just one paragraph from the above link:

Altruistic behaviour is common throughout the animal kingdom, particularly in species with complex social structures. For example, vampire bats regularly regurgitate blood and donate it to other members of their group who have failed to feed that night, ensuring they do not starve. In numerous bird species, a breeding pair receives help in raising its young from other ‘helper’ birds, who protect the nest from predators and help to feed the fledglings. Vervet monkeys give alarm calls to warn fellow monkeys of the presence of predators, even though in doing so they attract attention to themselves, increasing their personal chance of being attacked. In social insect colonies (ants, wasps, bees and termites), sterile workers devote their whole lives to caring for the queen, constructing and protecting the nest, foraging for food, and tending the larvae. Such behaviour is maximally altruistic: sterile workers obviously do not leave any offspring of their own—so have personal fitness of zero—but their actions greatly assist the reproductive efforts of the queen.​

There are numerous such treatises on the 'net, each offering insight into a well-documented and studied phenomenon which you seem to prefer to lay at the feet of a supernatural power.

You can post whatever you like, it's not up to me to "green light" anything you have to say. If my opinion has any influence at all, I'd like to encourage you to use fewer words to make your treatises more readable and accessible.

But your appeals to deity as the force driving altruistic behaviors are weak, when viewed in the light of biological fact. That's not "crude one-upsmanship", it's science.

You are simply not even acknowledging, let alone addressing, the weird patterns that have tied the most far-reaching human breakthroughs in social altruism with the most counter-cultural and nose-tweaking takes on deity. Of course, bats and plenty of mammals have ingrained altruistic habits as well. But we don't (yet) know fully the feelings other mammals feel or the thoughts other mammals think. We do, though, know something of the cultural habits that humans adopt. So humans are our best laboratory for determining what goes into the gestation of altruistic behavior through different civilizations through different millennia. That is the laboratory that has helped reveal this odd quirk that always ties new "altruisms" to new "theisms".

Of course, anyone has a right to come up with some explanation for this pattern that does not upset the assumption that there's no deity. But it's absurd to actually pretend the pattern doesn't exist! What's the point of your OP if you don't address any of the reasons submitted why there MIGHT be a deity?

If there really is no deity, then fine, explain this pattern some other way. But explain it! Don't just pretend the pattern doesn't exist.

Stone

 

[punshhh]

Veiled reference to Pascal's Wager, perhaps?

No, a light hearted reference to the shortcomings of belief, for intellectual thought. I consciously hold no beliefs (in the religious sense) and refrain from the use of the word in reference to processes of thought (it's other use).

 

[punshhh]

Even if he doesn't actually exist ?

His existence is irrelevant to the point. I am discussing if it is rational to consider his existence, not what exists or not. Who knows what actually exists.

That is not an answer: name a god which actually exists.

I can't because I don't know what exists and what doesn't, well apart from what appears to exist.

 

[punshhh]

OK, so why did you point out that god is considered a philosophical object to counter a claim that god is imaginary? Please elaborate.

Because it is implied in some lines of reasoning that the concept of god can only be imaginary and indeed on occasion, anything not demonstrated to exist by science, is purely imaginary and it would be folly to entertain its existence.

 

[punshhh]

If existence is to have any meaning it can not be contingent on the regard of an observer.

Some people choose to regard god as existing in the absence of concrete evidence. This is their prerogative.

If god requires an observer to regard it as existing in order to exist, then god may as well be Tinker Bell or Santa Clause.

That's not what I'm suggesting. It either exists or it does not exist, who knows.