It's so interesting how quickly these people went straight to a harsh no. I think it's saddening really that they can't see past anything they can't measure or observe. I think one put it best when be said his disbelief probably stems from a lack of imagination or that he's too afraid to take the leap of faith. I believe in God and am fully aware there's no empirical evidence to prove it either way. It's all about faith, and being humble enough to say "I don't have all the answers, and I'm okay with that." Am I curious and strive for answers? Certainly. But there will always be something I can't understand. To me, that's God.
It's not that they don't have the imagination or foresight needed to contemplate these things. It's that they find the exercise to be futile. Sure, you can have a pseudo-philosophical discussion on the nature of existence, or where we all came from, but you'll never truly be considering everything there is to consider, or looking at the issue completely objectively. Humility is definitely an important quality, regardless of if you're religious or not. But it's not exclusive to people who have faith! Practicing science generally takes this one step further - after the admission that you don't have all the answers, you resolve to try and find the answers as honestly as you can. By this definition, plenty of scientists and rational thinkers believe in God. But this definition of God is disingenuous; it's not the "God" that first comes to mind when you're posed a question.I think it's saddening really that they can't see past anything they can't measure or observe.
It's all about faith, and being humble enough to say "I don't have all the answers, and I'm okay with that."
Certainly. But there will always be something I can't understand. To me, that's God.
Woah now. You would call discussion about the nature of existence pseduo-philosophical? Is that not the vast majority of philosophy? Who are we, where do we come from, what is our inherent nature...you'd say all those are pseudo-philosophical topics?
Well, I think that in my experience these discussions very quickly derail. There's no rigor to them; everyone has some weird angle on the topic and you end up with a mish-mash of opinions and half baked thoughts. Good points are mixed with bad points and the pace of conversation is often too quick to discern between the two. For example, watch a conversation between two normal people on the topic of government. Then follow it up with a conversation between two people who have studied philosophy & great writers like Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, Plato, etc. The quality of the discussion, the form of the discussion, everything will be different. And the nature of government is (I would assume) a much easier topic than the far more meta issue of "why are we here, what is existence, who created us". It's just hard to have a serious discussion about these things, I guess.
I think you've just had some bad experiences then. Don't throw it out the window just yet. So are you saying you appreciate when great philosophers discuss the nature of existence?
Well, yes, but it would be important for me that they maintain a certain degree of clarity in their discourse. I wouldn't like to see it degenerate into the aforementioned muck. That aside, I think the title "great philosopher" carries with it enough intellectual rigor & skillful rhetoric that I'd likely be satisfied.
Well then there you go, a discussion on the nature of existence can be more than pseudo-philosophy.
Many theoretical physicists use their imagination in order to have deep thought about the universe and its establishment, yet it rarely leads them to a "God." Are you saying in order to believe in God, you have to have an imagination--just like you would if you believed in Santa Clause? You have to have faith to believe in Santa Clause as a kid, but once you realize that it was just a story that old people told you when you weren't old enough to understand how things really worked, it probably wasn't that hard to disbelieve. My view is the same as yours ("I don't have all the answers, and I'm okay with that"), and I have a pretty good imagination, but none of this leads me to any belief in a god that oversees our moral aptitude. If your definition of God is simply all that you can't understand, then I suppose I'd submit to that philosophy, but most God-fearing people don't stop there. May I ask, are you a practicing member of a religion?
I'd definitely say that in order to believe in God one must have an imagination. I can't really imagine someone believing in God and not having an imagination. Yeah, I know what you mean. I'm not sure if this argument stands for a conscience God, but at least the existence of one. I've grown up Christian (specifically Baptist). I hesitate to say this because of how many Christians have given the religion as a whole (and I dislike the word "religion" also, I prefer "spirituality"). I believe that the core of being a Christian is to love everyone. Too often people don't do that, which sucks. I try to live my life with this mentality and it's worked out so far.
I think it's quite easy for people to have a belief in God and have no imagination. For a large group of believers God becomes the answer for anything they can't wrap their intellect or imagination around. Don't have the imagination to think about tiny incremental changes over billions of years leading to complex and intelligent life? I'm not saying your particular belief in God fails prey to this kind of thinking, but I think it's quite easy to imagine someone having a belief in God and a complete and utter lack of imagination.I'd definitely say that in order to believe in God one must have an imagination. I can't really imagine someone believing in God and not having an imagination.
I think we both have valid arguments. In they end, it seems that we both have misconceptions about the other based on how the ill-taught of our kind portrays themselves to others.
Actually I don't think you have an argument at all, merely a broad sweeping generalization that is obviously false. And I think that claiming knowledge of me by my "kind" is the real misconception here.
Kind was used for lack of a better term. We both obviously come from two different schools of thought. What I was trying to say was that both of our mentalities have equal merit to them.
I'm always surprised when someone says (as was said in this video) "There's no evidence for it" in response to the question "Do you believe in God?" It seems like a fundamental misunderstanding of the word "belief." If you know that someone is true or you know it's false then you can't believe in it. To believe is to step beyond the confines of your experience- something almost inherently unscientific. It is, in a sense, the only use of imagination besides prediction- to use what you know to say, "There are things I don't know, and I can imagine this being one of them" without trying to use the result to, say, power a car or win an argument or solve a math problem. It just seems like they all gave perfect answers to "Is there evidence God exists?" and none of them addressed or thought about belief at all. Not one bit. Kierkegaard is probably spinning so fast in his grave, we could use him to solve all modern energy woes. And I say this as someone who uses his imagination quite a bit and doesn't believe in much of anything!
Unfortunately, thus is the way of scientific work. In science, there is no reason to believe in things that do not have proof, evidence of sorts backing it up. I'm not sure if it is to them "I don't have all the answers or cant understand something so that's god" as it is, "I am not satisfied using something with no real evidence as an answer for something I don't understand at this point in time.
Furthermore, it's impossible to prove objectively that empirical reasoning is superior to faith. Ironically, we take a leap of faith when we commit ourselves to evidence-based knowledge. We don't know if what we understand through experience, is the truest experience of reality.
The difference between evidence and faith is that there are things to back up evidence, numbers, observations, etc. I can have faith that 2 + 2=5 but that is still wrong according to all that we have held true. And according to BLOB_CASTLE below that my thought of 2 + 2=5 would be held as equally as 2 + 2=4. And unfortunately, its the truest form of reality we have, we can say that the Hubble telescope is not the best way to view space (which is probably true, there are always better ways to do something) however that does not mean we should hold the Hubble telescope, and my do-it-yourself telescope to the same standard. Just because we have two ways of viewing/ something does not mean that one cannot be better than the other.
I might need to explain my meaning a little more clearly. Firstly, 2 + 2=4 is a logical principle. It's a bad example to use since it's not exactly related to evidence-based knowledge. We don't get to the conclusion that 2 + 2=4 by collecting statistics and examining evidence: we don't try putting together two pairs of bricks, two pairs of horses etc. just to ensure that the principle remains invariably firm. Due to our understanding of number, when two and two are placed together, it logically follows that the sum total is four, and anything to the contrary is simply inconceivable. My comment was based upon how we interact with reality, and how these interactions can contribute to the all-important goal of human happiness. (Because, really, what're we doing if not pursuing happiness?) I think it's indisputable that humankind has advanced tremendously, from a technological perspective, over the past few centuries. But it can still be argued that, spiritually, morally, and psychologically, we're still very primitive. Many of us follow religions that were first adapted to the deserts of ancient Palestine. The reason why we perform a leap of faith in embracing evidence-based knowledge is this: we assume that a certain arrangement of objects, under the same circumstances, will always behave in the same way. We believe that the Earth will continue orbiting the sun. We believe that our hand will continue to respond to gravity. However, we don't know if these universal laws will continue unwaveringly into the future. I don't know for certain if the sun will rise tomorrow. The sun could have its movement intercepted by some other stellar object; the sun could explode; but, more interestingly, the laws of motion could cease entirely, and the universe could descend into a state where the rising of the sun is as unintelligible as 2 + 2=5. Some amount of faith and superstition is necessary in order to harbour some form of knowledge. What we need to determine, is how much faith and superstition can result in the best form of knowledge; that is, knowledge which best advances our happiness and tranquility.
What ultra-musketeer is saying, if I interpret correctly, is that you have faith that 22 will always equal 4. How do you know there aren't scenarios when it doesn't?
Say we're rounding. 2.42.4=5.8 thus, 2+2=5. And I'm not saying one's better than the other as a whole. The Hubble is better in outer space, your DIY telescope is better for close up. It all depends on the circumstances I suppose.
Well yeah, I agree with that. But I'm saying faith is as good as truth.I can hold something proven to be true over something with little/ no proof.
I would say that faith is vastly inferior to truth. Anyone can have faith, it requires literally nothing, and frankly does not impress me one little bit (no offense intended). Truth, whatever that may be, at least should be correct, if nothing else. But faith and truth are apples and oranges, and not really comparable, also.
How so? Preschool kids can have plenty of faith in Jesus (or Santa, for that matter), with no courage at all.
But kids still have their innocence and aren't aware of all the hardships the "real world" brings. One we've aged and know of the maladies the world contains, then it takes courage to hold steadfast in your faith when the world around you is bombarding you with contradictions.
Sounds like you're saying faith is easy for them because their faith is blind. "When I was a child, I thought as a child..." It would take a lot of courage for a grown-up to have faith in Santa, I'll give you that :-) But I'm not sure it would be a virtue.
Right exactly. They haven't had enough experiences to contest their faith.
Hahaha, yes, yes it would.
I would say it is virtuosic to be so convicted of something so much so that it's walls can deflect any attack. There's something deep to admire there. And while I say all this, it should be taken with a grain of salt. I'm nearly 21, I know I'm still a little kid and my thoughts haven't had time to fully age yet either. But I feel like there's some truth to what I'm saying. So, take of it what you will.
I have to give you a lot of credit for keeping this discussion civil - I can be a real ass sometimes, I know. Sorry about that. What I'm going to say next may test that... To me, faith is what you demand, when you want people to stop asking questions and just believe what you're told. I don't see it as virtuous in any way.
Haha, well thank you. A discussion is exponentially more fun than an argument. Something I learned in church a while ago is that if you're a Christian, you will doubt and ask questions about your belief at some point or another. If you're truly convicted of your faith, you'll find the answers lead you right back to where you started.
Asking questions is essential for growth in any regard, and spirituality is no exception.
I was reminded of this thread by something my wife just posted on FB. I'm interested in what you think of it. " I believe that anyone who actually examines their belief in a god, will come to the logical conclusion that there is no support for that belief, that in fact, it is nothing more than wishful thinking and fear of death."
Can I ask why you say "must exist" and not "does exist" ? Use of "must" implies to me that you think there is evidence of god, and I'm pretty sure there is not. I'm not trying to be combative here, or convert you to atheism, really. It's just that if we are going to discuss this, I do take a firm atheist view. We don't have to continue the discussion if you don't want to; I wouldn't be bothered.
mk, I can't seem to reply in the leaf comments of this thread. Is that because it is nested too deeply? On comments deeper in this tree, I have no reply link any more.
I was able to reply to tng's posting from my "notifications" page, but still can't from the original post.
no, you've just been cut off. Like when you've had too much to drink.. jk. Are you on a mobile device or computer? Just curious, this is definitely an mk question.
Oh no I don't get offended very easily. The reason I use "must" does come from myself having a romantic mindset. From what I've seen of the natural beautiful Earth:
And from what I've learned about the inner-connectivity of everthing in the known universe, my logic is that it had to have been created by God with an incredible plan in mind that we have no way of comprehension besides awe.
(my girlfriend and myself in Eagle, CO)
(Arches National Park)
I'll sum up our positions from my POV, and you can point out if I'm incorrect or being unfair. You: The universe is awesome! I assume something must have built it. I assume that something wouldn't have gone to the trouble, unless it had a master plan in mind. Me: The universe is awesome! Let's use our brains, skepticism, and the scientific method to figure out how it all works as best we can (you probably agree with this). The primary difference in our stances is that you make two assumptions that I don't see any justification for.
I agree completely this. I do agree with you about figuring out how to be the most effective we can be. The primary difference is not our stances, but our outlooks, is that I'm willing to do the leap of faith to convict myself of a belief I know will bring me ridicule.
Understood. I guess we just disagree. I DO agree, that the universe is wondrous, and I think it is miraculous that we humans have developed the capacity to appreciate all this, but I still feel no compulsion to believe that a magical being, who insists on remaining anonymous, built it all. Maybe that's the case, but I really doubt it. This is just the wondrous universe in which we happen to find ourselves. There's not an overarching plan, no angels or demons, no magic. Plenty of mysteries, sure, but (sadly) no magic. At least none I've seen.
Haha I guess we honestly do just disagree. I cannot convince myself that it isn't a superior being who created all of the wonder around us.
Do you believe this creator is the god of Abraham?
Well, there is where my own doubting comes in. That's what I've always grown up believing. As of late, I can't shake the notion that possibly we all worship the same God and over time our interpretations of his doctrine has become so skewed we've convinced ourselves there are a million different ones. But I don't know.
Oh my goodness this is genius. You're so right! Here are people, who base their lives on this evidence. But who knows if it's the truest experience?? No one! I'm not saying that one is better than the other. But since we can't know which is the 'truest experience of reality,' why don't we just hold faith and evidence equally?? You've really got me riled up here.
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer." From a material perspective, yes. But there is not a single human being in all existence who concerns themselves purely with using their hands for work. And I think that illustrates the precise degree of value that can be associated with our material aims.
I think a lot of people have a misconstrued view of the purpose of prayer/meditation. The purpose is to get oneself in the right mindset to achieve a certain goal. Say I pray to be more kind toward a certain person. God isn't going to instill kindness in me with a spiritual syringe. Rather, I've realized the nature of my actions much change and so I take time to meditate on that.
Prayer is (seems to me) for the one praying, not for the deity. I don't know why more Christians don't see this. If you pray for God to do something he wasn't going to do, surely that's futile.
If you pray for God to do something he was already going to do, surely that's useless. Therefore, if prayer is useful at all, then it is useful for the pray-er, not the pray-ee.
Is there really evidence? Or is it just blind faith in what your elementary school teacher once told you? ;) What about the whole concept of relativity and frame of reference? Should your driver's license be revoked if the police officer can provide evidence that your car was traveling 108,000 km/h above the speed limit? Because that's the speed it was traveling relative to the sun. Sure, if you're approximating planetary orbits, this is much easier to work with than this. But neither it technically wrong. Can you disprove that the sun "rises" each morning? No, because it's just a matter for frame of reference.I can have all the faith in the world that the sun revolves around the earth however the evidence would prove me wrong.
You've compared a heliocentric orbital diagram and a geocentric orbital diagram and proclaimed neither of them to be "technically wrong". This is absurd, the geocentric view of the solar system is absolutely wrong and is not even a useful approximation. It was, at one time, a useful and somewhat convincing approximation but the real answer is much simpler, far more accurate, and easier to work with. There is overwhelming evidence that this is the case. If we were having this discussion before the launch of the first interplanetary exploration missions there would STILL be overwhelming and conclusive evidence but in the age of space exploration it is incontrovertible. There's no blind faith required here, there is real evidence.
I wasn't really clear. I am not talking about orbits or the model of the solar system. I'm talking purely about changing the frame of reference. If you want to plot the movement of planets, you set the frame of reference at the sun. That way, the orbits are nice and elliptical. If you plot the movement of the moon, it will look something like this, though. To get a nice ellipse, you have to set the frame of reference at the earth. So now you have the earth at point (0,0,0) and you have the moon revolving around it in an elliptical orbit. What happens if you plot the sun? Normally, people consider the ground not to move, and use it as a frame of reference. So if you're just standing, you're not moving. If you're driving 30 miles per hour, you're moving at that rate relative to the earth's surface, right? So, if the ground is not moving but the sun moves from one side to the other, then at this frame of reference the sun is moving around the earth. So to be clear: I'm not making an argument against the model where the earth orbits around the sun - everything behaves the same. The only thing that changes is the frame of reference.
There's tons of evidence, no blind faith requires, your argument had no grounds and no blind faith required, unlike belief in god ;). Also, we use speed as a reference, true its really much faster relative to the sun but that i not the scale I, nor any rational human being uses. I cant disprove anything, it's impossible, can you disprove that you're a serial killing rapist, no.
I'm just playing devil's advocate here now, but how do you know that in a spiritual sense of our universe in which the sun and earth revolve around something entirely different? I know I'm being ridiculous. But the point of what I'm trying to say is that we shouldn't ever discredit the possibility for anything, even if there's no evidence for it.
But there's faith in facts! Faith that those facts will never change. Who knows that they won't?
Don't discredit the possibility that the earth and sun revolve around something else, because they do. Our solar system orbits the super massive black hole in the center of our galaxy. There's just nothing spiritual going on there. ;)
Haha, I knew that! It was the first thing I could think of off the top of my head!
Im taking out a limb here and say that these physicists need to think real hard about the nature of science and its empirical methods. The problem is that science is real bad at disproving things. I believe its not possible to prove the non existence of a god. Although I personally hold the believe that there is no such thing as a god, I can not prove it. And that is the nature of science; we have no reason to think that a god exists, but is it therefore correct to conclude there is no god?
The problem is that science is real bad at disproving things.
A very valid point you bring up. To answer your question, I'd say that it isn't correct to conclude the nonexistence of God. I can't prove that there's not a pizza in my oven right now (because I haven't put one) in. But that's not to say there isn't one in there. The possibility exists that a roommate put one in when I didn't notice. Sorry if this is off topic, I've just realized how hungry I am.
It was really odd how they came off as gnostic at first, sounding as if they had proof against God. To some extent I can understand their reactions, but an absolute no but these are smart and presumably curious people. God, a god, or even gods existing in a higher plane of existence would be incredibly hard to understand.
And that difficulty of understanding is what sets them apart. I'm not saying I believe in aliens, or that aliens are higher being, but check this out.