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

[Slowvehicle]

Let me be more specific, while the act of belief is real, a real activity. Its origin is imaginary, an act of imagination. There are of course imaginary concepts, but not all concepts believed in are imaginary, they may be intellectually derived.

Again, "intellectually derived" (especially in the face of an utter lack of evidence) is a weasel term for "imagined". You win one Wilbur.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Good question, but just because there are varying definitions, does not mean that it is a fruitless exercise.

I can give it a definition if you like.

An entity, or being who generated the world of existence we know.

"The world of existence we know" that exists without the slightest scintilla of evidence of the necessity, much less the actions, of anything "generating" it.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Perhaps, but if it is that being, we would not be here without it.

I thought you said you were not stooping to a modified Pascall's...

 

[Slowvehicle]

I have defined god as "the cause of the universe we know", not "the cause of the universe" and yes the Big Bang fits to an extent. I did include the words entity/being though. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is an imaginary being, which only exists in the minds of people, so could not have caused the universe.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster 'god' is an imaginary being, which only exists in the minds of people, so could not have caused the universe.[/QUOTE]

 

[Slowvehicle]

I don't know whether I'm just now noticing it, or if it's a meme or a talking point, but...

...Darn! I sure am hearing versions of the bolded part all the time recently.

In a discussion with an intelligent friend on Evolution, he reminded me that "No one really knows". He said the same thing about the age of the earth.

It was reflected in the Ken Ham/Bill Nye debate, with Ham taking the position, "If you weren't there, then you can't know."

I hear it constantly when discussing the probability of "life after death".

And don't get me started on Climate Change. And focusing on the phrase "the science is settled" rather than the science itself.

Another common, and apparently related theme is "Scientists don't know everything!" Trivially true, and stipulated, so why bring it up constantly?

Is it just me, or has there been a resurgence in what I consider a nascent "know nothing" world view? I see it as a first step in a slide from rationalism back into the dark ages, but maybe "It's Just Me!" (tm)

It is not just you. Anti-intellectualism is on the resurgence (I'm looking at YOU, Kansas State Legislature). It is much easier, and more comforting, to just "believe".

 

[RoboTimbo]

I have defined god as "the cause of the universe we know", not "the cause of the universe" and yes the Big Bang fits to an extent. I did include the words entity/being though. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is an imaginary being, which only exists in the minds of people, so could not have caused the universe.

That something may exist which we can't conceive of is trivially true. It isn't what was asked about in this thread. What was asked about here are those god concepts which people have invented for themselves and evidence that led them to their belief.

The god concept which you've invented can easily fit The Flying Spaghetti Monster which created the universe from itself, thus destroying itself in the creation. So, while a there was a creator (The Flying Spaghetti Monster) of the universe, no gods exist any longer. After all...

in four years of posting on this site, I have not seen one piece of evidence suggesting that God/god The Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist.

 

[Donn]

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.

Still sounds like this gutsy four-handful are just accidents of their time, doused in superstition and all the limitations of their times.

Try this:
An evil deity may exist as everyone else, except the gutsy four-handful, got their innate meta-ethics/socio ethics ripped away from them by it!

 

[Stone]

Still sounds like this gutsy four-handful are just accidents of their time, doused in superstition and all the limitations of their times.

Try this:
An evil deity may exist as everyone else, except the gutsy four-handful, got their innate meta-ethics/socio ethics ripped away from them by it!

Let's unwrap that. It sounds interesting. I get the first part of what you're saying -- as a thought experiment. So everyone else is simply a manifestation of the real deity, who is evil, with the altruistic gutsy-four-handful being a pushback of some kind. But your "got their innate meta-ethics/socio ethics ripped away from them by it" is not entirely clear. I _think_ you're saying that the innate meta-ethics/socio ethics of everyone else is meanly snatched away from us by this evil deity in infancy, but that the meta-ethics/socio ethics of everyone else is nevertheless at one point innate(?). So the altruistic gutsy-four-handful are therefore lucky because they somehow dodge this snatching away.

Well, even though recent observers of children (Goodman) have seen infants showing automatic empathy with everyone's pain during their first few months, yielding to fixation on their own pain only a couple of years in, your model still does not take account of the new counter-cultural deities that the altruistic gutsy-four-handful always introduce. Why is it the altruistic gutsy-four-handful who always introduce some new-fangled deities and never the self-centered pioneers? I do a study of the self-centered pioneers who introduce selfish "out for Number One" doctrines (Critias et al), in Sections IV to VII. They never introduce anything new for deities. Why?

Why is it the pioneering altruistic gutsy-four-handful who do that and never the pioneering "out for Number One" crowd?

Stone

 

[Fast Eddie B]

I think its simpler than that.

Simply put, "If anything goes, then anything goes."

Maybe a tautology, but once you open the door to rampant speculation, well, anything goes!

 

[zugzwang]

Yes, in the classic phrase, there are no constraints on possible outcomes. Or in the words of Laplace, the idea of God explains everything, but predicts nothing.

 

[Darth Rotor]

God exists to provide you with a workable life solution?

Gee, why am I not surprised to see a deliberate misrepresentation in such a thread?

I have a choice: waste time in yet another thread of this nature, or, go play some Diablo III or some Leage of Legends.

I'll do the latter, as it is more productive use of my time.

To Vortigern: sorry I bothered to respond, there was no need to get involved in the usual echo chamber/dogpile that this kind of thread usually turns into.

Best wishes in any case.

 

[Stone]

I think its simpler than that.

Simply put, "If anything goes, then anything goes."

Maybe a tautology, but once you open the door to rampant speculation, well, anything goes!

The cultural patterns that Haidt and other atheists have observed are not just speculations. They are plainly observed patterns in a sequence of documented reflections from altruistic iconoclasts stretching back thousands of years. That is why mapping the human brain is now essential in determining if these documented reflections are the result of internal or external stimulation.

Stone

 

[Stone]

Gee, why am I not surprised to see a deliberate misrepresentation in such a thread?

I have a choice: waste time in yet another thread of this nature, or, go play some Diablo III or some Leage of Legends.

I'll do the latter, as it is more productive use of my time.

To Vortigern: sorry I bothered to respond, there was no need to get involved in the usual echo chamber/dogpile that this kind of thread usually turns into.

Best wishes in any case.

I'm just sorry that more easily observable patterns, like the documented cultural habits around altruist pioneers -- as opposed to other purely speculative theist junk like vague generalizations about a First Cause and blah blah blah -- failed to interest you.

Stone

 

[Dr. Keith]

Or in the words of Laplace, the idea of God explains everything, but predicts nothing.

Nice reminder, thanks.

 

[Dr. Keith]

You don't seem to be following. At no point have I suggested that god exists, or that there is concrete evidence of his existence. This is an exercise in intellectual thought, not in what exists or not.

Sorry, I misinterpreted your responses. After reading this I am no clearer on what you were trying to say earlier, but I can agree that you have presented no evidence of an existence of god, and probably we can leave it at this point of agreement.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I have defined god as "the cause of the universe we know", not "the cause of the universe" and yes the Big Bang fits to an extent.

Only heathens worship the cause of the universe we don't know.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I have defined god as "the cause of the universe we know", not "the cause of the universe" and yes the Big Bang fits to an extent.

By that do you mean:

the cause of the known universe​

or

the known cause of the universe​

I think the big bang fits either pretty well, but you seem to like precise definitions so I thought I would ask.

 

[psionl0]

The title says it all. Theists: Please give me a reason to believe in your superpowered invisible overlord.

If you like, you can try to start with some objective evidence. Conclusive data of any kind.

Failing that, you may wish to use reasoned arguments to convince me that believing in this being is the right thing to do.

Good luck.

It's not called "faith" for nothing.

You can believe if you want to but don't expect the rest of the world to uphold that belief. On the contrary, you will probably find that belief challenged all the way.

 

[Stone]

It's not called "faith" for nothing.

You can believe if you want to but don't expect the rest of the world to uphold that belief. On the contrary, you will probably find that belief challenged all the way.

And yet, it is discouraging when a lifelong practice of focusing strictly on facts on the ground, and being extremely dubious all one's life of "magic" junk like stopping the sun in the middle of the day, etc., and growing up with two extremely well-read professors who were both atheists, all gets discounted the second that such habits lead one to inquire into the cultural on-the-ground history of altruistic meta-socio ethics. It all gets discounted purely because one -- possible -- answer to the odd phenomenon of symbiosis of both meta-socio iconoclasm and theistic iconoclasm might entail external rather than internal stimulation of the human brain. Horrors!

Instead of being interested in unwrapping the possible ways in which such a phenomenon might reflect internal stimulation only, thus discarding any necessity of positing some outside energy, etc., at all, the evident response here is to instead jump to an immediate defensive posture without even addressing the phenomenon at all or coming up with any alternate explanations for what happens to be a very pervasive symbiotic pattern. That knee-jerk defensive response is not worthy of a forum such as this.

Either admit that you have no wish to address this symbiotic phenomenon at all -- which shows that you too are a faith-head of a sort -- or provide an alternate explanation for the phenomenon instead, unwrapping just how come it's always the altruistic iconoclasts only who introduce some new-fangled variation on deity every time across the millennia.

Stone

 

[Slowvehicle]

And yet, it is discouraging when a lifelong practice of focusing strictly on facts on the ground, and being extremely dubious all one's life of "magic" junk like stopping the sun in the middle of the day, etc., and growing up with two extremely well-read professors who were both atheists, all gets discounted the second that such habits lead one to inquire into the cultural on-the-ground history of altruistic meta-socio ethics. It all gets discounted purely because one -- possible -- answer to the odd phenomenon of symbiosis of both meta-socio iconoclasm and theistic iconoclasm might entail external rather than internal stimulation of the human brain. Horrors!

Instead of being interested in unwrapping the possible ways in which such a phenomenon might reflect internal stimulation only, thus discarding any necessity of positing some outside energy, etc., at all, the evident response here is to instead jump to an immediate defensive posture without even addressing the phenomenon at all or coming up with any alternate explanations for what happens to be a very pervasive symbiotic pattern. That knee-jerk defensive response is not worthy of a forum such as this.

Either admit that you have no wish to address this symbiotic phenomenon at all -- which shows that you too are a faith-head of a sort -- or provide an alternate explanation for the phenomenon instead, unwrapping just how come it's always the altruistic iconoclasts only who introduce some new-fangled variation on deity every time across the millennia.

Stone

...except for the ones who are "iconoclastic" enough not to need to cripple themselves with superstitions (and it is still sloppy of you to include the Gautama in a list of "theists").