Do you believe in God?

[homeforsummer]

BTW, "citation needed" is a claim, not an explanation.

It's actually a request, but since you're neither good at understanding words nor answering requests, I'm not surprised you didn't get that one.

An action is the proof of belief.

No it isn't. If I get out of a chair and stand up I don't do it with the belief I'll be able to stand up, I do it because I have the knowledge and experience of standing up. Belief doesn't come into it. I don't need to believe my legs are capable of standing and I don't need to believe the floor will support me when I do so - as they've done so many times before and I have accrued that understanding that they will.

Though admittedly after several pints of beer I've often held the belief that the floor won't support me, though we've already been over the fallibility of the mind in this thread before.

 

[Imari]

See above.
Once you take action to cross the bridge, you went from thinking, to "bloody well believing".

Get back to me when you learn to speak English. You clearly aren't speaking the same language as the rest of us.

Maybe you can ask Santa to bring you a dictionary for Christmas.

 

[Danny]

No it isn't. If I get out of a chair and stand up I don't do it with the belief I'll be able to stand up, I do it because I have the knowledge and experience of standing up. Belief doesn't come into it.

But you stand up with the belief that doing so won't cause you harm. Science can only go so far and there comes a point where you have to stop relying on research and think of it more as a Schrodinger's Cat kind of deal. You don't know if standing up will cause you harm until you do it, you do it with the belief that it won't. If it became a solid fact like spontaneous human combustion that 2.5% of the time you stood up from your chair, you won't catch fire, you would henceforth be standing up with faith and belief, not your "science". You sound to be having some difficulty drawing a line between the two.










[/stir]

 

[BobK]

I'll state again - it's really difficult for you to accept that people operate without belief.

Belief, is fundamental to everyone, and is an obvious fact of life.

Q.E.D.

At this point I think it might be more accurate to say impossible rather than really difficult.

 

[Ingram]

But you stand up with the belief that doing so won't cause you harm. Science can only go so far and there comes a point where you have to stop relying on research and think of it more as a Schrodinger's Cat kind of deal. You don't know if standing up will cause you harm until you do it, you do it with the belief that it won't. If it became a solid fact like spontaneous human combustion that 2.5% of the time you stood up from your chair, you won't catch fire, you would henceforth be standing up with faith and belief, not your "science". You sound to be having some difficulty drawing a line between the two.

[/stir]

I know (or should I say believe?) that this is tongue in cheek, so for the benefit of others, this statement mixes up belief and faith with probability. If I stand up, it is highly improbable that anything bad will happen to me, so I know that in all likelihood, I can do it with the most likely unsavoury outcome being a bit of a head rush.

 

[Mark T]

When you stand up do you consciously believe that there might be a risk? I can't say that I ever have. It's an automatic response and there isn't any belief involved simply because standing up without harm has been repeatable for me for most of my life. I don't need to have belief that I'll be ok.

However, ask me to jump from a height and I will have to either convince myself or have an unfounded belief that everything is going to be ok. Since I have never done it before I don't know whether I'll be ok. It's merely blind faith.

 

[homeforsummer]

Depends on the height. For a certain distance you might already be aware you can land safely, provided you take necessary precautions. Freerunners don't need belief they'll be okay when leaping a storey or two down - they've got experience from having practiced and done similar jumps, technical ability in knowing how to land safely etc. Belief isn't involved unless you're literally jumping into the unknown.

On the other hand, jumping say, fifty feet down, and "believing" you'll be okay is foolhardy. There's belief involved for sure, but that's certainly blind faith rather than understanding.

 

[Mark T]

That's when it comes down to risk.

I will not jump from this height because I believe I'm going to break a leg/my spine/skull.

I will believe in this God and His book because billions also do. If I don't believe I may end up being tortured for eternity in hell.

 

[homeforsummer]

Indeed. Though it's perfectly acceptable to believe in the Bible, really. Necessary, even, since that's what it's there for.

The bit that's harder to accept is SCJ attempting to redefine words like "belief" to make it look like we're only "believing" in science, and therefore our own views hold no more weight than his own. Or "evidence", based not on scientific method but on a more general form of evidence, that of personal, uncorroborated experience.

 

[Carbonox]

That's when it comes down to risk.

I will not jump from this height because I believe I'm going to break a leg/my spine/skull.

I will believe in this God and His book because billions also do. If I don't believe I may end up being tortured for eternity in hell.

But is this god even worthy of being worshipped if he indeed throws nonbelievers into a flaming pit to suffer for eternity?

Brings to mind the saying about just and unjust gods...

 

[MatskiMonk]

For the record, I think we are getting hung-up on terminology... I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anybody else, but it does rather stifle the discussion...

Anyhow... I like this:

"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems."

 

[Mark T]

Agreed

The bit that's harder to accept is SCJ attempting to redefine words like "belief" to make it look like we're only "believing" in science, and therefore our own views hold no more weight than his own. Or "evidence", based not on scientific method but on a more general form of evidence, that of personal, uncorroborated experience.

Belief - an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof. Science has proof, no faith needed.

I would say that if I choose to stand up, then it's inevitable that I will stand up. Unless there is some outside factor which is going to hinder my attempt to do it. I know for certain that I can stand up right now. I don't need belief in that. However I don't doubt that there may be an outside influence which stops me from doing so. I believe that something could stop me from standing up (but I have no proof as to what that could be).

Gravity. I know I will feel the effects of gravity everyday. It's built in to the universe. Gravity will always be there without fail. I don't believe there's gravity, I know there's gravity. Gravity as a force will do its work, it's inevitable.

I have to believe there is not a God (but I can't prove it).

 

[Danoff]

@MatskiMonk

I have no idea why Einstein is an authority in this area. He is often quoted when it comes to religion, and I can't fathom why. Einstein is no more a brilliant philosopher than he is an open heart surgeon.

Agreed
Belief - an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof. Science has proof, no faith needed.

Not that I'm disagreeing with the sentiment, but this is a bit of a simplification. Science doesn't have proof, it has evidence. And it doesn't require faith not because it supplies the proof, but because you shouldn't consider the current state of scientific knowledge to be infallible truth. Science is constantly correcting itself when new evidence is presented. Believing, in the sense that a religious person believes, that some part of science will not correct itself is not a good idea.

I would say that if I choose to stand up, then it's inevitable that I will stand up....
I know for certain that I can stand up right now.

Unless there is some outside factor which is going to hinder my attempt to do it.

These are contradictory statements. You don't know for "certain" that you can stand up right now. You assume it is probable based on your experiences. You can't know for "certain", and it definitely isn't "inevitable".

Gravity. I know I will feel the effects of gravity everyday. It's built in to the universe. Gravity will always be there without fail.

You can't know that.

I don't believe there's gravity, I know there's gravity.

That's contradictory.

Gravity as a force will do its work, it's inevitable.

It isn't.

I have to believe there is not a God (but I can't prove it).

That would be faith.

 

[MatskiMonk]

@MatskiMonk

I have no idea why Einstein is an authority in this area. He is often quoted when it comes to religion, and I can't fathom why. Einstein is no more a brilliant philosopher than he is an open heart surgeon.

Einstein isn't an authority in this area, and he's mistakenly quoted in defence of Scientific/Religious harmony. However, I still like it as a quote, and it struck me as an interesting perspective (I didn't suggest an authoritative one).

Einstein, as a Physicist who has likely considered such things with a much greater understanding of the universe, or at least a more intricately constructed idea of it than most - suggests we should be content with imperfect knowledge. It's this bit that I remembered (the rest I had to google), because, it seems at odds with the human thirst for knowledge, which seems to me as detrimental to 'finding answers' as just using gods to explain things. Whether that relates to the workings of the universe, time, or how we relate to one another... it's these aspects I personally would seek the answers to, these are areas where most humans would have some belief system, and I think religion, or God, or whatever, is how the brain links them all together.

Not strictly relevant to the precise argument going on at the moment, but it came to me whilst reading famines posts about believing in non belief (or something like that, to be honest I didn't really follow the conversation!)

edit:

Gravity as a force will do its work, it's inevitable.

It isn't.

Huhwut?

 

[Danoff]

Huhwut?

What makes you think it's inevitable? Only the fact that it has always existed in the past? That's not inevitability, that's assumption.

 

[MatskiMonk]

What makes you think it's inevitable? Only the fact that it has always existed in the past? That's not inevitability, that's assumption.

Oh right, so now you want to throw the word "assumption" in to the melting pot that is this threads thesaurus-rex monster of word-storm?. Is the reaction between two bodies which have a mass questionable now?

 

[Danoff]

Is the reaction between two bodies which have a mass questionable now?

Moreso than your own knowledge of your existence. Moreso than logic. Moreso than math. Less than almost anything else.


Here's a hierarchy of knowledge:

1) Existence (by definition)
2) Logic
3) Math (derivative of logic)
4) Theory
5) Hypothesis

What you're talking about is number 4 on the list. This thread is about number 5 (and I'm being generous). I suppose perception should be on there somewhere around 5.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Moreso than your own knowledge of your existence.

Huh, tell me more ... tell me more of how my knowledge of my existence s less questionable than gravity.

 

[Villain]

These last few posts have made things difficult for my brain, so I'd appreciate a little bit of clarification.

I can stand, therefore God exists?

 

[Dennisch]

More like: I don't fly of this spinning rock in space, therefore god exists.

 

[Imari]

Oh right, so now you want to throw the word "assumption" in to the melting pot that is this threads thesaurus-rex monster of word-storm?. Is the reaction between two bodies which have a mass questionable now?

There's still huge amounts of stuff we don't understand about gravity. While it's very likely to continue to operate as you expect, just as the sun is very likely to rise tomorrow, you cannot know with certainty.

People makes scientific predictions using words that amount to certainty, but it's a verbal shortcut for extremely high probability. There's always that chance that something different happens. Which is how most of the knowledge of the human race has been collected, someone noticing that something wasn't behaving as they expected.


Your existence is about the only thing you can be sure of, because if you didn't exist you wouldn't be able to wonder if you existed.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Stating something and then restating it more vigorously is no explanation. It's the equivalent of stamping your feet and yelling "IT JUST IS, OKAY?!"

Your certainly familiar with that concept.

It's not either of those things.Quit dodging the question. Is it difficult for you to accept that people exist who do not believe in anything - even the belief that they do not believe in anything?

Yes or no?

Having answered it numerous times now, obviously, at this point, answering again would be an exercise in futility.
Since you do not recognize or accept any substantive rationale or known definitions.
Not to mention "belief" in "no belief" is a complete contradiction, and untenable from any rational observation.

Your previous answer was "no". Your responses since (including the above text-wall of irrelevance) have said "yes", indicating that answer to be false.

Hardly.
If I might draw your attention to #4.


World English Dictionary
accept (əkˈsɛpt)
— vb (sometimes foll by of )
1. to take or receive (something offered)
2. to give an affirmative reply to: to accept an invitation
3. to take on the responsibilities, duties, etc, of: he accepted office
4. to tolerate or accommodate oneself to
5. to consider as true or believe in (a philosophy, theory, etc): I cannot accept your argument
6. ( may take a clause as object ) to be willing to grant or believe: you must accept that he lied
7. to receive with approval or admit, as into a community, group, etc
8. commerce to agree to pay (a bill, draft, shipping document, etc), esp by signing
9. to receive as adequate, satisfactory, or valid
10. to receive, take, or hold (something applied, inserted, etc)
11. archaic to take or receive an offer, invitation, etc
[C14: from Latin acceptāre, from ad- to + capere to take]
ac'cepter

And here #1.

World English Dictionary
agree (əˈɡriː)
— vb , agrees , agreeing , agreed
1. ( often foll by with ) to be of the same opinion; concur
2. ( also tr; when intr, often foll by to; when tr, takes a clause as object or an infinitive ) to give assent; consent: she agreed to go home ; I'll agree to that
3. ( also tr; when intr, foll by on or about; when tr, may take a clause as object ) to come to terms (about); arrive at a settlement (on): they agreed a price ; they agreed on the main points
4. ( foll by with ) to be similar or consistent; harmonize; correspond
5. ( foll by with ) to be agreeable or suitable (to one's health, temperament, etc)
6. ( tr; takes a clause as object ) to concede or grant; admit: they agreed that the price they were asking was too high
7. ( tr ) to make consistent with: to agree the balance sheet with the records by making adjustments, writing off, etc
8. grammar to undergo agreement
[C14: from Old French agreer, from the phrase a gre at will or pleasure]

Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009
Cite This Source

Possibly, you will take note of the distinct differences.

It's hardly an admission. It's pretty much the definition of belief - self-assuredness in an outcome regardless of evidence.

Imagine that.

Add in evidence and remove the self and it's no longer belief. Well boy howdy, aren't you excelling at missing the point?

Well, perhaps then, you can explain how you can "legitimately" "remove self" from that equation?

Dying before you wake is one of myriad possibilities that must be considered and assigned a probability when setting an alarm clock. So is a power failure or spike resetting the alarm. So are interdimensional portals opening up and transporting you or your alarm clock to Tau Ceti, a curiously specific neutrino burst obliterating your clock, your ears spontaneously filling with wax and preventing you from hearing it or the entire street outside being filled with wildebeest. All are possible and all must be considered and assigned a probability.

Setting your alarm clock and it waking you in the morning is, on balance of probability, the most likely thing to happen. Expecting this to occur is just an analysis of evidence, weighting of probability and extrapolation of outcome.

And,....... and,.......and, that all concludes in what, do you think?

Believing it will wake you, no matter what, is self-assuredness in an outcome regardless of evidence.

And all from belief, just as I claimed.

 

[Famine]

Your certainly familiar with that concept.

Indeed. Given your obdurate reticence to provide even a mote of evidence in response to any request for it, I've acquired significant familiarity with it.

Having answered it numerous times now, obviously, at this point, answering again would be an exercise in futility.

Then we'll stick with the fact you lied in your response, when you said you could accept it but reject the possibility in every other response.

"Yes or no" too difficult for you?

Not to mention "belief" in "no belief" is a complete contradiction, and untenable from any rational observation.

You have to "believe" you are living without belief, just to entertain it as a personal operating system.

Your response that you can accept people believe they live without belief is now also in direct contradiction - so even your lie is a lie now

Well, perhaps then, you can explain how you can "legitimately" "remove self" from that equation?

Objectivity.

And,....... and,.......and, that all concludes in what, do you think?

And all from belief, just as I claimed.

Your response to the quote does not tally with the quote.

People who set an alarm clock believing it will wake them no matter what are operating under a belief that disregards evidence. People who set an alarm clock expecting it to wake them are operating under an analysis of evidence and know that it might not.

You think everyone does the former. They don't. This is an intrinsic denial of your belief-oriented universe that you will never accept because your universe is belief-oriented.


You do not accept that people can operate without belief. Yes or no?

 

[homeforsummer]

I see SCJ's discourse has now turned into the internet version of "I KNOW YOU ARE, BUT WHAT AM I?":

Your certainly familiar with that concept.

Though at primary school I'd probably have known to use "you're" in that context, admittedly.

 

[Famine]

I see SCJ's discourse has now turned into the internet version of "I KNOW YOU ARE, BUT WHAT AM I?":

Though at primary school I'd probably have known to use "you're" in that context, admittedly.

I can't wait until he tells on me to his dad.

 

[Mark T]

When talking with reference to the future, is there anything that can be deemed inevitable or certain?

 

[homeforsummer]

When talking with reference to the future, is there anything that can be deemed inevitable or certain?

The continuation of this thread...

 

[Spurgy 777]

When talking with reference to the future, is there anything that can be deemed inevitable or certain?

Interesting question, without a time machine, no, with a time machine you could argue yes, although best we don't get into that

 

[TheCracker]

When talking with reference to the future, is there anything that can be deemed inevitable or certain?

Death and taxes.

 

[Mark T]

Death and taxes.

Even with death, we can't say it's inevitable surely. Although I guess that depends on one's own definition of death.