Do you believe in God?

[Imari]

Crikey, imagine if it wasn't. Imagine if you literally believed any old tosh told to you simply because you were told it. You'd go insane.

There's certainly evidence that this is the case. See any number of cults and the wacko people that inhabit them.

 

[Danny]

This is all just more accusatory denial, and no explanation.

Already been through all of this repeatedly.

I believe in irony.

 

[Dotini]

I don't believe in God. I respectfully deny the existence of God as particularly described in Christian literature. If there is a heaven, hell or afterlife, it applies to all people, not just those who accept one God or another.
I do believe in science, but recognize its limitations and problems. For instance, consciousness is unexplained.
I do believe there is an unexplained organizing force in the universe. An intelligence, if you like.
I do believe man is greater than the sum of his parts.
I do believe many organized religions do a great deal of harm; some go into a frenzied blood lust from time to time.

 

[Exorcet]

I do believe in science, but recognize its limitations and problems. For instance, consciousness is unexplained

Can you expand on this? Many things are unexplained, that's not really a problem. It also doesn't imply some kind of weakness in science. If it's unexplained, nothing is explaining it, not just science But at least science can attempt an explanation.

 

[huskeR32]

I do believe in science, but recognize its limitations and problems. For instance, consciousness is unexplained.

Science is not something you believe in. It's a process used to find knowledge.

Now, I assume that you're doing what a lot of people do, and using the word "science" to refer, vaguely and collectively, to all knowledge ever gained from scientific experiment and observation. This is silly, but so many people do it that I suppose I should stop trying to resist it. So I'll play along.

If there is anything that "science" has yet to explain, such as your example of consciousness, that's not a limitation or a problem of science. When anything is unexplained, then either nobody has asked the right question yet, we lack the technology or methodology to properly investigate the question, or the unexplained thing simply doesn't actually exist.

You can't fault the method (science) for the fact that we sometimes lack the intelligence or tools to properly utilize it.

 

[orimarc]

Exactly. Think of electricity: as a form of energy, it's been "represented" through thunder and lighting since before humans even existed, yet we didn't have the intelligence, tools or technology to embrace and use it until the 19th century, when usable batteries where invented.

 

[Dotini]

Can you expand on this? Many things are unexplained, that's not really a problem. It also doesn't imply some kind of weakness in science. If it's unexplained, nothing is explaining it, not just science But at least science can attempt an explanation.

Science itself acknowledges that the explanation of consciousness is a problem. Another long acknowledged problem is anomalous coronal heating of the solar atmosphere, although NASA is currently closing in on explanations for this! I love it.

Science is not something you believe in. It's a process used to find knowledge.

You can't fault the method (science) for the fact that we sometimes lack the intelligence or tools to properly utilize it.

Yes, science is something I believe in, although it is not my religion. I believe it is the most valid and useful way (process) to discover truth that we currently know of, so we must treasure it highly. The only criticism I have with the scientific method is its sometimes obsessive reductionism - although that too is being gradually addressed.

 

[Exorcet]

Science itself acknowledges that the explanation of consciousness is a problem. Another long acknowledged problem is anomalous coronal heating of the solar atmosphere, although NASA is currently closing in on explanations for this! I love it.

A problem as in a currently unexplained observation, but in no other sense. From your initial statement it seems that you were implying that there was some alternative to science for explaining consciousness or that the lack of explanation for consciousness should be unexpected. That isn't the case though.

 

[Touring Mars]

I do believe in science

I don't believe in science.

That said, both statements are equally meaningless.

I'm being pedantic here of course, but unfortunately that has become necessary in this particular debate.

My point here is that belief is not required for one to be a scientist, or for science to have value or validity.

I don't believe Carbon atoms have 6 protons because I don't need to believe it for it to be true.... atoms that have 6 protons are Carbon atoms by definition, therefore there is no reason for me to believe Carbon atoms have 6 protons for it to qualify as a fact.

Likewise science. I don't believe in science because, by its very definition, belief is not required.

we must treasure it highly

Indeed... and I do, very much.

Of course, not all questions in science are as easy to answer as others. And the very nature of science itself means that, no matter how many brilliant insights it can provide, there will always be room for more, and therefore there will always be room for controversy and disagreement. There is absolutely no problem with that, provided we are talking about genuine controversies i.e. differing hypotheses based on the same evidence, as opposed to completely fake controversies that are based on a wilful misinterpretation, fabrication or ignorance of the evidence.

I don't think the issues you mention are problems with the nature of science itself, but are merely the consequence of the fact that these are just very difficult questions and the jury is still out when it comes to drawing firm conclusions.

 

[Danoff]

What is the basis or reason for your, "I do not believe in God" position?

Lack of a basis or reason to believe in God.

 

[Dotini]

A problem as in a currently unexplained observation, but in no other sense. From your initial statement it seems that you were implying that there was some alternative to science for explaining consciousness or that the lack of explanation for consciousness should be unexpected. That isn't the case though.

Yeah, that's right. Consciousness is a currently unexplained phenomenon, and maybe the greatest puzzle of all.

And yes, there is no currently successful "alternative to science" explanation to consciousness that I know of. I've casually studied certain aspects of this, for instance Pranayama Yoga, just for valuable first hand experience.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

"Operative actions" meaning what exactly? Taking action? Doing something?

If the act of believing something is an operative action, then by definition not believing something is not an operative action... no belief is the default position.

We went through all of this several pages back as well.

"But anyway, it's already been explained using two very clear 'real' scenarios. Danoff used a loaded gun scenario, and I gave you the analogy of whether or not you would bet your life savings on the toss of a coin.

Regarding the coin toss gamble, what do you "believe" will happen, and what "operative action" will you take based on your beliefs? I don't "believe" the coin will land heads face up nor do I "believe" the coin will land tails face up either. It's a fact that both outcomes are equally likely, and therefore I do no apply belief at all... when it comes to the possible outcome of the coin landing on heads, I'm in a position of no belief. Same applies to tails. As such, because I am in a position of no belief, I would not bet my life savings on it. My 'operative action', therefore, is to do nothing/not place the bet.

Then, in this case you took no action, only a position.

I think you mean to say, you don't believe you will choose the favorable outcome.

The example is somewhat of a correlation to life itself, since there is no gaurantee on future outcomes.
The odds may vary, but thats what makes life a complete exercise in belief.

"How about you? What do you believe the outcome to be, and will you act according to your belief?

Since it's a 50/50 proposition, I would likely take the same position you did.

"If anything, 'operative actions' (i.e. stuff you actually do) should never be predicated on belief.

Practically without exception, they always are, and for the reason I just mentioned above.
And again below:

"The example is somewhat of a correlation to life itself, since there is no gaurantee on future outcomes.
The odds may vary, but thats what makes life a complete exercise in belief."

I have no reason to believe in God and no belief is the default position.

I think you mean, you believe you have no reason to believe in God, don't you?
In light of your example, I find that very inconsistent.

 

[Famine]

Then, in this case you took no action, only a position.

Choosing to take no action is an action.

I think you mean, you believe you have no reason to believe in God, don't you?

I think you mean you believe he believes he has no reason to believe in God, don't you?

In light of your example, I find that very inconsistent.

How so? With no belief in the heads or tails outcome of the coin toss, he doesn't bet his life savings on either outcome. With no belief in the existence or nonexistence of a deity, he doesn't bet his life on either possibility.

 

[Touring Mars]

We went through all of this several pages back as well.

Actually, no, we didn't. You only mentioned the term 'operative actions' for the first time a few days ago, and you haven't explained or clearly defined what you mean by this phrase anywhere, hence why I am asking for clarification. I think I know what you mean, but you haven't actually specified what 'operative actions' means.

I think you mean to say, you don't believe you will choose the favorable outcome.

I'm saying that I do not apply belief because I know that my chances of success and failure are exactly the same. My decision to not place a bet is not guided by belief but by the knowledge that I'm as likely to lose as I am to win. Winning would be great, but I cannot entertain any possibility of losing, therefore the only sensible course of action is to not place a bet.

I do not have to believe that the two possible outcomes (heads or tails) are equally likely - they are equally likely. Belief is not required in order to make a decision here. A rudimentary knowledge of probability is all that is required to guide my actions.

Since it's a 50/50 proposition, I would likely take the same position you did.

So your position is one of 'no belief' too.

I think you mean, you believe you have no reason to believe in God, don't you?

No.

In light of your example, I find that very inconsistent.

Only thanks to your careless rewording of what I said, which changes the meaning of it completely.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

I have no belief in any deities.

So, does that mean you have no reason or basis, or you just don't wish to say?

Choosing to take no action is an action.

No, it's a decision to take no action.
And a decision actually based in belief.
TM in reality, believes he could lose the bet.
Which is a factually based belief.

Assumedly, the bet is still on the table.
But TM has not acted to take the bet.
So, as far as the example, he is taking no action.

I think you mean you believe he believes he has no reason to believe in God, don't you?

Since, he has stated it in a resolute, firm and conclusive manner, I have no choice from a rational viewpoint, but to believe, he believes he has no reason to believe in God.

Unless, like I pointed out to you a while back, he is a mighty good fortune teller, or believes he is,
that is the only rational conclusion to draw.
Since he was unwilling to take the bet, that indicates the former.

How so? With no belief in the heads or tails outcome of the coin toss, he doesn't bet his life savings on either outcome. With no belief in the existence or nonexistence of a deity, he doesn't bet his life on either possibility.

If he takes the bet, the coin will fall in his favor, or it won't.
He, as I said, believes he could lose the bet, so he is unwilling to risk his life savings.

Now as far as the Christian God proposition, since he is a living human being, the bet is on.
You have no choice in that.
Further, the bet is, without taking action to hedge the bet, you could lose your own soul.
So, if he is unwilling to risk his temporal life savings, why would he be willing to risk his eternal soul.
That appears inconsistent to me.

 

[Mark T]

Now as far as the Christian God proposition, since he is a living human being, the bet is on.
You have no choice in that.
Further, the bet is, without taking action to hedge the bet, you could lose your own soul.
So, if he is unwilling to risk his temporal life savings, why would he be willing to risk his eternal soul.
That appears inconsistent to me.

Pledging belief in one particular God is a bad bet. Which leaves us with the question of where we should place our bets to preserve our soul. Do I choose Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam or Sikhism (to name a few). And then which particular sect of a particular religion do I take? What if I choose the wrong one? Any bet (following) would be a monumental risk.

Or, as atheists do, we'll continue to disregard every God equally until such time as there evidence to prove otherwise.

 

[Famine]

So, does that mean you have no reason or basis, or you just don't wish to say?

Nope.

No, it's a decision to take no action.

Actually, in your universe it should be a decision to take "no action", but it's not that either.

Actions have consequences. Should Mars act to gamble his life savings on a coin toss, the consequences are doubling his life savings or losing all of them. The act of not gambling his life savings has the consequence that he retains his life savings.

In fact the action of no action is often the only safe - or occasionally moral - act. Here the action of no action prevents him losing his life savings. In the runaway trolley thought problem, the action of no action is the only way to prevent yourself being responsible for the loss of life.

Now as far as the Christian God proposition, since he is a living human being, the bet is on.
You have no choice in that.
Further, the bet is, without taking action to hedge the bet, you could lose your own soul.
So, if he is unwilling to risk his temporal life savings, why would he be willing to risk his eternal soul.
That appears inconsistent to me.

Curious. You seem to be drawing a direct parallel between Earthly fiscal matters and what you believe to be the afterlife - and we all know what the Bible has to say about that. It'd make more sense to use two tangible quantities.

In your example of God being a bet, what's on the table is actually his mortal life. Your wager is to allow his soul to live on forever in Heaven or... not (depending on your flavour of sect, it could be hell, limbo or some other quantity).

He's choosing not to place his life at stake in this high-risk, double-or-quits, one-shot bet. Seems perfectly consistent with not being will to place his life savings at stake in a high-risk, double-or-quits, one-shot bet.


What's more consistent is that he's choosing to not place his life at stake in the gamble regardless of the religion, whereas you're all-in for all of them, betting with "god" for Christianity and "no god" for other sects of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Jainism, Shinto, Raelism, Daoism, Paganism, Spiritualism, Zoroastrianism, Rastafarianism, Bahaism and even Scientology.

Given that you could lose your own soul, it seems a bit bizarre to shove the lot in behind one and against the other - why not hedge your bet?

 

[homeforsummer]

Does anyone else think we've inadvertently come up with a sound scientific theory that SCJ doesn't actually know what several words mean?

I mean, it's even peer-reviewed, since several of us have observed and recorded under identical conditions his inability to understand the concept of not believing in something, and his misuse of the words evidence, science, and proof.

At the same time, SCJ believes himself to be correct. This thread has become its own metaphor.

 

[Exorcet]

The odds may vary, but thats what makes life a complete exercise in belief.

Only if you voluntarily close your eyes and refrain from looking at the odds. Only then will you will be left with belief. If you try to quantify the odds, which is very possible:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_theory

You don't need to bother with belief. Instead you get factual data.

You only believe your car will start tomorrow because you choose to ignore facts.

I know that my car as it is now has a near 100% chance of starting tomorrow because it's in good shape and has proven very reliable. I have no belief on whether or not it will start, only the relative probability of it starting and this is more than enough for me to make decisions on.

 

[Duke]

Now as far as the Christian God proposition, since he is a living human being, the bet is on.
You have no choice in that.
Further, the bet is, without taking action to hedge the bet, you could lose your own soul.
So, if he is unwilling to risk his temporal life savings, why would he be willing to risk his eternal soul.
That appears inconsistent to me.

Wow. It's been years since I really participated in this thread and you are still flogging this same line. You are positively Terminator-like in your dogged and unyielding insistence on projecting your beliefs onto the rest of the world.

It's not even that you're necessarily trying to convert us, or evangelize your particular religion. It's that you insist on interpreting everything everybody says in light of something non-scientific, non-objective that you happen to believe, and you are completely, utterly, earth-shakingly unable or unwilling to understand that your belief simply doesn't apply to those who don't share it.

We're not discussing the laws of physics here. Gravity affects everyone equally, whether or not they even notice it, understand it in any form, or just think that the Earth sucks. But there is just no way you can equate your belief in your God to that kind of fundamental force of nature. It may affect *you* that way, because you have chosen to believe it does, but you MUST understand that it is JUST - NOT - GOING to affect others that way, no matter how often or how stridently you insist it does.

"The bet is on. You have no choice in that." <~~~~~ That is your fundamental mistake and the underlying root of all this endless debate. You can insist that I have no choice for all of your eternity. That still doesn't mean it's true. Just like a hundred million people testifying that they believe God has directly affected their lives doesn't mean He actually has. All further discussion will be useless until you accept that other people can simply not accept your assertions, without incurring any logical fallacies in their own thinking.

 

[Touring Mars]

If he takes the bet, the coin will fall in his favor, or it won't.
He, as I said, believes he could lose the bet, so he is unwilling to risk his life savings.

I don't "believe" I could lose the bet - it's a plain fact that I could lose the bet, so belief is redundant.

if he is unwilling to risk his temporal life savings, why would he be willing to risk his eternal soul.

That appears inconsistent to me.

Inconsistent?

Placing a bet on a coin toss means taking a risk - you may win or you may lose. I do not wish to risk losing so I do not place a bet.

Placing one's faith (believing) in one particular deity is taking a risk - you might be right or you might be wrong.

Having no belief in any deities (while being open to the possibility that one might exist) is a position of no risk - I cannot be wrong because I have made no statement on the existence of any Gods other than to accept the possibility that they may exist.

Those sounds like pretty consistent positions to me.

 

[dxld]

I have un-belief in Santa Clause, but I believe in the one and only God.

... And really Un-belief does not sound right, it doesn't feel right, I just don't believe in Santa Clause. Santa Clause never gave me anything, I did not even have a chimney in my house so He could never get inside my house as a child.

Santa Clause isn't even Jewish, but Christ is Jewish.

Belief is more than science or a dictionary definition. Sometimes belief starts with believing in what is your purpose in life.

 

[homeforsummer]

I have un-belief in Santa Clause, but I believe in the one and only God.

Is the Santa Clause a spin-off of the Bourne Identity or the Thomas Crown Affair?...

 

[huskeR32]

I have un-belief in Santa Clause, but I believe in the one and only God.

Why don't you believe in Santa Claus? Once you have that answer ready, then ask yourself why you believe in god. If any of the reasons that you use to dismiss Santa Claus also apply to god, throw them out. What part of your answer about god is left? I'm honestly interested.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Actually, in your universe it should be a decision to take "no action", but it's not that either.

It most assuredly is no action. Not just in my universe, but in the reality of "our universe".
A mental process is not an action, other than, in just the mental sense.
Exercising a decision or a choice does not always dictate an action.
This case is a good example.

Actions have consequences. Should Mars act to gamble his life savings on a coin toss, the consequences are doubling his life savings or losing all of them. The act of not gambling his life savings has the consequence that he retains his life savings.

In fact the action of no action is often the only safe - or occasionally moral - act. Here the action of no action prevents him losing his life savings.

Quite the opposite.
His inaction resulted in "no consequence".
The only way to engage a consequence, was to take action on the bet
Otherwise there is no consequence.
His life savings is intact, just as it was prior to the proposition.

Curious.

You seem to be drawing a direct parallel between Earthly fiscal matters and what you believe to be the afterlife - and we all know what the Bible has to say about that. It'd make more sense to use two tangible quantities
In your example of God being a bet, what's on the table is actually his mortal life. Your wager is to allow his soul to live on forever in Heaven or... not (depending on your flavour of sect, it could be hell, limbo or some other quantity).

He's choosing not to place his life at stake in this high-risk, double-or-quits, one-shot bet. Seems perfectly consistent with not being will to place his life savings at stake in a high-risk, double-or-quits, one-shot bet.

You've already gone askew.
The bet is on and it is uncancelable.
You don't get a choice on that.
Your only choices are to take action to avoid the negative consequence, or disregaurd the warning and take your chances, so to speak.
One thing is absolutely assured. You will physically die one day, and the ensuing consequences, whatever they are, will take effect.

The only consistency by TM is not taking action.
Only in this case, the risk is with the inaction, not the action.

What's more consistent is that he's choosing to not place his life at stake in the gamble regardless of the religion, whereas you're all-in for all of them, betting with "god" for Christianity and "no god" for other sects of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Jainism, Shinto, Raelism, Daoism, Paganism, Spiritualism, Zoroastrianism, Rastafarianism, Bahaism and even Scientology.

Given that you could lose your own soul, it seems a bit bizarre to shove the lot in behind one and against the other - why not hedge your bet?

That is all up to the individual.
However, considering the implications of the Bible, you are clearly covered.

 

[dxld]

Why don't you believe in Santa Claus? Once you have that answer ready, then ask yourself why you believe in god. If any of the reasons that you use to dismiss Santa Claus also apply to god, throw them out. What part of your answer about god is left? I'm honestly interested.

Well if I had to tell you why I believe in God I would have to tell you my life story of how I came to believe in God. But if I were to give a short summary I believe that there are no better instructions to live by than the Old Testament Jewish Law, and New Testament Christian Law.

Of all the stuff I have been through, including many life threatening experiences. It's a miracle that I'm alive, and I give all my thanks to God t have survived. Nobody can change this belief I have in God.

 

[Duke]

You've already gone askew.
The bet is on and it is uncancelable.
You don't get a choice on that.

Except, of course, for the part where we DO have a choice on that. And by "part", I mean, "all of it." I do not choose to believe in an eternal soul, I do not choose to believe in a super natural god(s), because I have seen zero evidence that compels me to think that God's existence is the most logical explanation for the observed phenomena. Therefore your bet, that you keep insisting is "on" for me even without my consent, is not even in the same universe as I am.

You can keep insisting that your God applies to me for all of eternity. He doesn't. No amount of insistence will make your assertion true.

 

[Duke]

But if I were to give a short summary I believe that there are no better instructions to live by than the Old Testament Jewish Law, and New Testament Christian Law.

What about the parts where they are in direct conflict with each other? What about, ohhhhh, half of Leviticus?

 

[huskeR32]

Well if I had to tell you why I believe in God I would have to tell you my life story of how I came to believe in God. But if I were to give a short summary I believe that there are no better instructions to live by than the Old Testament Jewish Law, and New Testament Christian Law.

So, in sum, because books?

Of all the stuff I have been through, including many life threatening experiences. It's a miracle that I'm alive, and I give all my thanks to God t have survived. Nobody can change this belief I have in God.

Without the specifics of these events, I can't properly assess how "miraculous" they were, so I don't really have a response to this part. I'm sure there are perfectly plausible explanations, though if you want to share any of them, I'd be pretty interested.

 

[Dennisch]

Thank god, the doctor cured him.