Is Believing In God...?

[Snorri1234]

Humor us with a couple.

Google is your friend, and unless you refute every last one (or judging by the fact that there is still a debate at all), you cannot say with any real certainty that God doesn't exist. Same for the theists.

I have heard an awefull lot of arguments for god's existence I haven't realy seen any that could'nt also apply to leperchauns or the FSM or unicorns. I will concede to probably no god on a purely academic stance, but I think it more probable there is no god.

For me, one of the things that has always sort of led me down the path to the possibility of the existence of God is...eyes. Yes, eyes. I find them fascinating enough in their concept that it's one of those things that I find to be more than just "possible" that they weren't created solely through strength of the fittest, so to speak. Note that I'm not saying that evolution didn't come through here...merely that it seems to me that the possibility of evolution being guided in the case of eyes is significantly there.

Then certainly the dude who guided evolution there could've done a better job, no?

[joecoolfrog]

Please explain why it is logical to position an unseen, unproven ' God ' as the default response to everything that we do not at this time have proven answers for

Please explain why you correlate "faith" with "logical".

Comic doesn't but many others do seem to suffer this illusion

[Woodruff]

I find your lack of faith...disturbing! <laughing>

Stop... just stop. If you're going to use Star Wars quotes, change your avatar.

I find that...illogical.

[Woodruff]

Please explain why it is logical to position an unseen, unproven ' God ' as the default response to everything that we do not at this time have proven answers for

Please explain why you correlate "faith" with "logical".

I do not see the word 'faith' anywhere in comic's post.

Please explain how do you NOT correlate "God" with "faith"?

Please explain why I should. "It's a position held by many believers" is not a good answer, btw.

Because you quite simply cannot get to God without faith. Any discussion of God that doesn't include faith is useless.

(I haven't seen anyone state that you can PROVE there's a God...did I overlook it?)

I don't think anyone in here thinks they can prove or disprove God, but you can make logical arguments outside of "faith" for either side.

I agree.

Humor us with a couple.

Google is your friend, and unless you refute every last one (or judging by the fact that there is still a debate at all), you cannot say with any real certainty that God doesn't exist. Same for the theists.

I have heard an awefull lot of arguments for god's existence I haven't realy seen any that could'nt also apply to leperchauns or the FSM or unicorns. I will concede to probably no god on a purely academic stance, but I think it more probable there is no god.

For me, one of the things that has always sort of led me down the path to the possibility of the existence of God is...eyes. Yes, eyes. I find them fascinating enough in their concept that it's one of those things that I find to be more than just "possible" that they weren't created solely through strength of the fittest, so to speak. Note that I'm not saying that evolution didn't come through here...merely that it seems to me that the possibility of evolution being guided in the case of eyes is significantly there.

Then certainly the dude who guided evolution there could've done a better job, no?

I would tend to think so, yes. Then again, I'm not omniscient, so how do I know it's not actually the best job for his purpose?

(Ok, I DO THINK I am omniscient, but that's beside the point...)

Please explain why it is logical to position an unseen, unproven ' God ' as the default response to everything that we do not at this time have proven answers for

Please explain why you correlate "faith" with "logical".

Comic doesn't but many others do seem to suffer this illusion

He seems to be trying to do so, by bringing up whether God is a reasonable response.

[MeDeFe]

Please explain why you correlate "faith" with "logical".

I do not see the word 'faith' anywhere in comic's post.

Please explain how do you NOT correlate "God" with "faith"?

Please explain why I should. "It's a position held by many believers" is not a good answer, btw.

Because you quite simply cannot get to God without faith. Any discussion of God that doesn't include faith is useless.

Honest question: Why?

[thegreekdog]

Because you quite simply cannot get to God without faith. Any discussion of God that doesn't include faith is useless.

Honest question: Why?

Because I can't prove that there is a God. At least, that's my response.

[john9blue]

1.) Why is the "First cause" exempt from having a cause? Give an explanation that explains why the First cause is exempt, explains away Hume's problem of induction and shows how Occam's Razor is not applicable in this situation.

Everything we know about this universe follows causality, therefore the cause of the universe has to be outside the universe. I think I've said this before. Clearly there is some plane of necessary existence, but it's not here. You can believe that the universe is timeless or necessary, but that's just a guess.

2.) Why would the First Cause be God? Give a solid logical reason as to why one should attribute the common atributes of God (omniscience, omnibenevolence) to the First Cause.

Like I said, I define God as the Creator. Omnipotence is likely from such a being, omniscience is probable, omnibenevolence is unlikely as we define "benevolence" usually in a selfish way. I think there may be something special about humans, a "soul" if you will, that separates us from other organisms... but the only answer will come from further psychological study.

3.) Given that we see complexity arising from non-complexity (heavier elements forming and all that), why should we even assume that the First Cause had any intelligence? Not simply that it was all-knowing like God, but any actual intelligence.

What do you mean by "intelligence"? I think God embodies the creative urge within humans (what separates up from other animals, as above), but if you mean does he know what's going on at all times, I don't know, it probably depends on whether God pervades our universe or not, which is pretty much unanswerable at this point (but still possible, seeing as he created it).

[Snorri1234]

1.) Why is the "First cause" exempt from having a cause? Give an explanation that explains why the First cause is exempt, explains away Hume's problem of induction and shows how Occam's Razor is not applicable in this situation.

Everything we know about this universe follows causality, therefore the cause of the universe has to be outside the universe. I think I've said this before. Clearly there is some plane of necessary existence, but it's not here. You can believe that the universe is timeless or necessary, but that's just a guess.

You're clearly not very knowledgeable on philosophy.
Hume's problem of induction explains why causality is not a neccesary pre-requisite for the universe at large. You can't logically argue that because we observe causality in our lives that it must apply to the universe as a whole, i.e. that there must be something that caused the universe. Causality shows a relation between items in time, but since any notion of "time" does not make sense outside the universe there need be no causes for the universe.

But that's not very important right now because you didn't even answer my question. Why is the First Cause exempt from having a cause? If you're hellbent on sticking to causality as law then obviously the First Cause should also have a cause which was caused by something else into infinity.


Surely for an argument that convinced you so much you can give a better response?
(i'd add in a bit about Occam's razor but that will only be usefull when you're a little further into an answer)

Like I said, I define God as the Creator. Omnipotence is likely from such a being, omniscience is probable, omnibenevolence is unlikely as we define "benevolence" usually in a selfish way. I think there may be something special about humans, a "soul" if you will, that separates us from other organisms... but the only answer will come from further psychological study.

You define him as having those characteristics, which is all well and good but it doesn't answer why the First Cause should be God. This is an important question, because it's where you can explain why it's God who is the first cause and not some natural process.

So uh....answer the question.

3.) Given that we see complexity arising from non-complexity (heavier elements forming and all that), why should we even assume that the First Cause had any intelligence? Not simply that it was all-knowing like God, but any actual intelligence.

What do you mean by "intelligence"?

By intelligence I mean intelligence. You know. Rocks don't have intelligence and animals do. That kind of thing.

I think God embodies the creative urge within humans (what separates up from other animals, as above), but if you mean does he know what's going on at all times, I don't know, it probably depends on whether God pervades our universe or not, which is pretty much unanswerable at this point (but still possible, seeing as he created it).

I don't mean whether he knows what's going on all the time. I am not asking about God, I'm asking about the First Cause. Why should it have intelligence and not be just a simple thing?


Give an answer to the questions. Don't just give me conclusions you already made prior to even thinking about the questions.

[john9blue]

You're clearly not very knowledgeable on philosophy.
Hume's problem of induction explains why causality is not a neccesary pre-requisite for the universe at large. You can't logically argue that because we observe causality in our lives that it must apply to the universe as a whole, i.e. that there must be something that caused the universe. Causality shows a relation between items in time, but since any notion of "time" does not make sense outside the universe there need be no causes for the universe.

But that's not very important right now because you didn't even answer my question. Why is the First Cause exempt from having a cause? If you're hellbent on sticking to causality as law then obviously the First Cause should also have a cause which was caused by something else into infinity.

Surely for an argument that convinced you so much you can give a better response?
(i'd add in a bit about Occam's razor but that will only be usefull when you're a little further into an answer)

I'd disagree with Hume and say that it's unreasonable to expect something to break a consistent pattern, especially when it's a generalized law like causality. It doesn't mean it can't, just that expecting it to when it never has is unreasonable. Also time is just a dimension, there's nothing that says it doesn't exist outside the universe... in fact I'm pretty sure it does, since I can't imagine more dimensions being created from less.

Like I already said, I think it's reasonable to assume there is a realm of necessary existence outside the universe. There must be a first cause, and it wasn't in this universe.

And judging by Occam's Razor, "God did it" is the best response for nearly everything...

You define him as having those characteristics, which is all well and good but it doesn't answer why the First Cause should be God. This is an important question, because it's where you can explain why it's God who is the first cause and not some natural process.

So uh....answer the question.

What's the difference between God and a natural cause? God is part of nature.

The only real question is whether the agent of creation had a consciousness. I don't think this is unreasonable, seeing as creation is an action.

I don't mean whether he knows what's going on all the time. I am not asking about God, I'm asking about the First Cause. Why should it have intelligence and not be just a simple thing?

Because I think it was conscious (for reasons above), omnipotent (at least powerful enough to make the Universe), and had free will (unless you think our Universe is necessary, which I don't). Now I don't know any of this stuff, but it's definitely not less reasonable than the alternatives.

[Woodruff]

I do not see the word 'faith' anywhere in comic's post.

Please explain how do you NOT correlate "God" with "faith"?

Please explain why I should. "It's a position held by many believers" is not a good answer, btw.

Because you quite simply cannot get to God without faith. Any discussion of God that doesn't include faith is useless.

Honest question: Why?

Because God is unprovable, thus faith is a REQUIREMENT. Unavoidable. It seems sort of obvious to me, to be honest.

[Woodruff]

And judging by Occam's Razor, "God did it" is the best response for nearly everything...

You have an interesting (and by interesting I mean weird) perspective on Occam's Razor.

[Woodruff]

Humor us with a couple.

Google is your friend, and unless you refute every last one (or judging by the fact that there is still a debate at all), you cannot say with any real certainty that God doesn't exist. Same for the theists.

I have heard an awefull lot of arguments for god's existence I haven't realy seen any that could'nt also apply to leperchauns or the FSM or unicorns. I will concede to probably no god on a purely academic stance, but I think it more probable there is no god.

For me, one of the things that has always sort of led me down the path to the possibility of the existence of God is...eyes. Yes, eyes. I find them fascinating enough in their concept that it's one of those things that I find to be more than just "possible" that they weren't created solely through strength of the fittest, so to speak. Note that I'm not saying that evolution didn't come through here...merely that it seems to me that the possibility of evolution being guided in the case of eyes is significantly there.

You guys got nothing? I'm disappointed.

[Neoteny]

Behe baffles us all.

[Frigidus]

Humor us with a couple.

Google is your friend, and unless you refute every last one (or judging by the fact that there is still a debate at all), you cannot say with any real certainty that God doesn't exist. Same for the theists.

I have heard an awefull lot of arguments for god's existence I haven't realy seen any that could'nt also apply to leperchauns or the FSM or unicorns. I will concede to probably no god on a purely academic stance, but I think it more probable there is no god.

For me, one of the things that has always sort of led me down the path to the possibility of the existence of God is...eyes. Yes, eyes. I find them fascinating enough in their concept that it's one of those things that I find to be more than just "possible" that they weren't created solely through strength of the fittest, so to speak. Note that I'm not saying that evolution didn't come through here...merely that it seems to me that the possibility of evolution being guided in the case of eyes is significantly there.

You guys got nothing? I'm disappointed.

Well, the eye is complex to the point that one might at first think that design is necessary to create it, but considering that evolution considers us to have progressed from single cellular organisms to what we are now it is hardly a deal breaker. Besides, there are plenty of examples of organs we have that equal the eye in their complete uselessness (the appendix, for instance, serves only to potentially clog up and kill us assuming we don't immediately have it removed).

Besides, we have examples of eyes that are both far more and far less advanced than our own. We can see that eyes "put together" much more poorly than ours have their uses, so it isn't too hard to imagine natural selection going to work with basic photosensitive cells and building up from there.

[Aradhus]

And judging by Occam's Razor, "God did it" is the best response for nearly everything...

You have an interesting (and by interesting I mean weird) perspective on Occam's Razor.

Woodruff thinks weird, I'd go straight for clueless and idiotic. "God did it" is not the simplest answer, it is the easy answer, completely different things. Taking something amazingly complex, like the universe, which you don't quite understand, and pulling out this god character who is even more complex, and who you also don't understand, to explain the first compexity, is the exact opposite of Occams Razor.

As for the silly, "eyes are complex" argument. Yeh, our eyes are relatively complex, lots of creatures eyes are really basic, there is a spectrum. You look at eyes, can I look at ear wax and conclude that the universe was created by a dippy child with below average intelligence?

[Woodruff]

Google is your friend, and unless you refute every last one (or judging by the fact that there is still a debate at all), you cannot say with any real certainty that God doesn't exist. Same for the theists.

I have heard an awefull lot of arguments for god's existence I haven't realy seen any that could'nt also apply to leperchauns or the FSM or unicorns. I will concede to probably no god on a purely academic stance, but I think it more probable there is no god.

For me, one of the things that has always sort of led me down the path to the possibility of the existence of God is...eyes. Yes, eyes. I find them fascinating enough in their concept that it's one of those things that I find to be more than just "possible" that they weren't created solely through strength of the fittest, so to speak. Note that I'm not saying that evolution didn't come through here...merely that it seems to me that the possibility of evolution being guided in the case of eyes is significantly there.

You guys got nothing? I'm disappointed.

Well, the eye is complex to the point that one might at first think that design is necessary to create it, but considering that evolution considers us to have progressed from single cellular organisms to what we are now it is hardly a deal breaker. Besides, there are plenty of examples of organs we have that equal the eye in their complete uselessness (the appendix, for instance, serves only to potentially clog up and kill us assuming we don't immediately have it removed).

Besides, we have examples of eyes that are both far more and far less advanced than our own. We can see that eyes "put together" much more poorly than ours have their uses, so it isn't too hard to imagine natural selection going to work with basic photosensitive cells and building up from there.

I agree that it's not too hard to imagine natural selection at work. But I maintain that it's not too hard to imagine that there was a guiding hand, as well.

[neanderpaul14]

I find your lack of faith...disturbing! <laughing>

Stop... just stop. If you're going to use Star Wars quotes, change your avatar.

That sounds logical.

[john9blue]

Woodruff thinks weird, I'd go straight for clueless and idiotic. "God did it" is not the simplest answer, it is the easy answer, completely different things. Taking something amazingly complex, like the universe, which you don't quite understand, and pulling out this god character who is even more complex, and who you also don't understand, to explain the first compexity, is the exact opposite of Occams Razor.

I think snorri pointed out earlier that the universe is increasing in entropy, so a creator God wouldn't need to be very complex at all. If one's philosophy was based entirely on Occam's Razor they would probably get a Berkeleyan idea world.

I can't believe you're actually trying to use the Razor (a rule of thumb) as a logical argument...

[MeDeFe]

Woodruff thinks weird, I'd go straight for clueless and idiotic. "God did it" is not the simplest answer, it is the easy answer, completely different things. Taking something amazingly complex, like the universe, which you don't quite understand, and pulling out this god character who is even more complex, and who you also don't understand, to explain the first compexity, is the exact opposite of Occams Razor.

I think snorri pointed out earlier that the universe is increasing in entropy, so a creator God wouldn't need to be very complex at all. If one's philosophy was based entirely on Occam's Razor they would probably get a Berkeleyan idea world.

I can't believe you're actually trying to use the Razor (a rule of thumb) as a logical argument...

Do you know what entropy is? If yes, what does it have to do with anything?




And Woodruff, it isn't obvious to me.

[natty dread]

Everything we know about this universe follows causality, therefore the cause of the universe has to be outside the universe.

This is one of the most illogical arguments I've read in this thread.

If, for the sake of argument, we assume that everything in this universe follows causality, then how can we extrapolate that to outside of this universe? Even if we did know that all in this universe follows causality, how could we know if there was any such concept as causality outside this universe? Wouldn't there have to be for the cause to this universe to be outside this universe?

[Koesen]

For me, one of the things that has always sort of led me down the path to the possibility of the existence of God is...eyes. Yes, eyes. I find them fascinating enough in their concept that it's one of those things that I find to be more than just "possible" that they weren't created solely through strength of the fittest, so to speak. Note that I'm not saying that evolution didn't come through here...merely that it seems to me that the possibility of evolution being guided in the case of eyes is significantly there.

You guys got nothing? I'm disappointed.

Eyes don't need a guiding hand to be explained. Essentially, what you start with is a simple light sensitive cell that may have a completely different function than vision. There are, for example, very simple deep sea organisms that use them to feed. Since it's a useful mechanism for survival, evolution wil make it stronger, increasing the photosensitivity a little bit each generation. Eventually, you get an eye.

A computer model described in Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, volume 256, shows you can go from a single photosensitive cell to something as complex as an eye in about 100,000 generations, and every new generation will be better than the one before.

100,000 generations may sound like a lot, but humans can reach that in two to three million years and organisms that reproduce faster don't even need that. Given the age of the earth, there has been time to redevelop the eye many times over, and there is no need for any guiding hand other than the principle of survival of the fittest.

[Woodruff]

And Woodruff, it isn't obvious to me.

Did my explanation help? Or hurt? Or neither?

[Woodruff]

For me, one of the things that has always sort of led me down the path to the possibility of the existence of God is...eyes. Yes, eyes. I find them fascinating enough in their concept that it's one of those things that I find to be more than just "possible" that they weren't created solely through strength of the fittest, so to speak. Note that I'm not saying that evolution didn't come through here...merely that it seems to me that the possibility of evolution being guided in the case of eyes is significantly there.

You guys got nothing? I'm disappointed.

Eyes don't need a guiding hand to be explained. Essentially, what you start with is a simple light sensitive cell that may have a completely different function than vision. There are, for example, very simple deep sea organisms that use them to feed. Since it's a useful mechanism for survival, evolution wil make it stronger, increasing the photosensitivity a little bit each generation. Eventually, you get an eye.

A computer model described in Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, volume 256, shows you can go from a single photosensitive cell to something as complex as an eye in about 100,000 generations, and every new generation will be better than the one before.

100,000 generations may sound like a lot, but humans can reach that in two to three million years and organisms that reproduce faster don't even need that. Given the age of the earth, there has been time to redevelop the eye many times over, and there is no need for any guiding hand other than the principle of survival of the fittest.

I understand all of that, though I would heartily disagree with the presumption that "every new generation will be better than the one before", because that's simply not going to hold true. My basic point is that the eye is complex enough that it does cause me to pause on the subject and consider the possibility of a guiding hand.

[Snorri1234]

I'd disagree with Hume and say that it's unreasonable to expect something to break a consistent pattern,

Then you're awfully unaware of logic and reason. Hume's argument is logically sound and fully reasonable, even though it contradicts common sense.

especially when it's a generalized law like causality.

Wait what?

It doesn't mean it can't, just that expecting it to when it never has is unreasonable.

The point is that it looking back at the little experience we have of causality is not sufficient reason to assume it needs to be applicable outside of the universe. It's actually an absurd notion.

Also time is just a dimension, there's nothing that says it doesn't exist outside the universe... in fact I'm pretty sure it does, since I can't imagine more dimensions being created from less.

.....

That has to be one of the funniest things I've ever read.

Dimensions exist within the universe. They all do because they're neccesarily included in it. If you're going to include dimensions outside of the universe you're merely creating another universe. (one which does not have to be anything like ours, but must have the traits of existing.)

Like I already said, I think it's reasonable to assume there is a realm of necessary existence outside the universe. There must be a first cause, and it wasn't in this universe.

Yes you said you think it's reasonable but you haven't explained why it's reasonable. You leap from the point that the universe began towards saying that something needed to have started it. Which is unreasonable since you're adding an unnecesarry cause.

And judging by Occam's Razor, "God did it" is the best response for nearly everything...

You clearly do not understand the slightest thing about Occam's Razor.

Occam was actually a very devout Christian. Yet he objected against all the "proofs" of God because they weren't rationally sound. He still believed, but he acknowleged that those arguments were irrational.

What's the difference between God and a natural cause? God is part of nature.

But God is a personal entity with traits and the like. He is someone, not just something.

The only real question is whether the agent of creation had a consciousness. I don't think this is unreasonable, seeing as creation is an action.

It is very much unreasonable since we witness unconscious entities create things every single day. If winds and water-erosion shape rock it's unreasonable to assume the wind and the water have a consciousness.

Because I think it was conscious (for reasons above), omnipotent (at least powerful enough to make the Universe), and had free will (unless you think our Universe is necessary, which I don't). Now I don't know any of this stuff, but it's definitely not less reasonable than the alternatives.

It will certainly be less reasonable if you don't provide proper reasons as to why you think it.

[Snorri1234]

I understand all of that, though I would heartily disagree with the presumption that "every new generation will be better than the one before", because that's simply not going to hold true. My basic point is that the eye is complex enough that it does cause me to pause on the subject and consider the possibility of a guiding hand.

Sure. And that one insect who procreates by sticking some weird needle into another insect's brain and then mindcontrols them to seek out more food while it lays it's eggs inside the creature so the babies can slowly eat the other insect from the inside while assuring there's some extra food available pauses me to consider the possibility of a guiding hand.


I do however think that guiding hand belongs to some sadistic bastard.