Moderator note: Spellbound had been warned for his potty mouth antics earlier in the thread. Due to accumulated warning points this means he will be taking a break from sciforums. Members are reminded to treat one another with basic courtesy.
Jan Ardena: We had a whole thread about faith not too long ago. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence (c.f. the expression "leap of faith", for example). The waters are somewhat muddied by different usages of the word "faith" to mean different things. For example, faith is not the same as trust. But we've been through all that. Faith is the description of the belief rather than the reason for it. The non-believer (in God) does not have faith (in God's existence). It is possible, however, to simultaneously not believe in God and yet still have faith-based beliefs in other things. Belief in God is no different from belief in god(s). In fact, your God is just one conception of god(s). Today I heard an American on my radio claiming that it is impossible that humans could be causing global warming. Why? Because, the man said, God has given the world to human beings and made it perfect for us. If we try to damage it, God prevents that. In other words, God will always protect the planet He has given to us to exploit as we wish. Taking this man's argument to its logical conclusion, he is saying that no human-caused pollution is a problem because God will - somehow! - protect His creation from the pollution and will make sure that our world remains beautiful and suitable for our use regardless of anything we do. Do you think that this American's belief in God is a problem? If not, is there a problem with what he believes? And what is the problem, if there is one? How might one address the problem (if it exists) in this man's case? By the same token, it is entirely normal human behaviour to believe in astrology, in the effectiveness of sacrifices to deities and in divining the future. It is entirely normal human behaviour to believe that the Earth is flat, that diseases are caused by evil spirits, that woman are inferior to men, that all things are made of four elements (earth, air, fire, water), that hereditary rule is the best form of government, that it is appropriate to hurt or kill (some) other human beings, and so on and so forth. If it's a tradition, it must be right. Right? In your case, belief in God means you think that a supernatural being exists who created the universe. Doesn't it? I don't believe that a supernatural being created the universe. Lacking a belief needs no justification. Belief is what needs justification. For example, there's no need for me to justify why I don't believe that a pink unicorn called Rex lives in the White House, surviving solely on a diet of jelly beans that are grown in the garden there. I think you'd probably want some justification before you agreed to join the Church of Rex. But I think you'd be quite content with withholding your belief in the glory of Rex even though you have no justification for that.
That's OK; you don't need to agree with it. There is room for all viewpoints. As I said, some people simply require more evidence than others.
Every time someone has observed something new and tried to make sense of it they have created a Man-made explanation for that observation. One hopes, in due course, that the man-made explanation matches the reality, that the explanation they devised is the truth. We do this most successfully, I feel, through science, by testing the explanation / theory. Sometimes we will come up with an explanation that is simply untestable, or perhaps it is testable but nothing is observed but that lack of result does not falsify the particular theory. If that is the case then all we are left with is just the man-made theory. If we believe that man-made theory to be true then we do so on faith. I can only assume that Jan has never tried to explain a new observation first-hand but instead waited for someone to tell him what it is that has been observed. Jan has obviously never come across any superstitions, which are man-made explanations to describe patterns that were once observed but have been shown to be unproven. If Jan has done either of those things then there is a case that God is just another man-made explanation, and until God (cause of all causes) is somehow revealed as described, all we can (or probably better to say should) conclude is that God is a man-made explanation. Belief that the explanation is indeed the truth, in the absence of revelation of that truth, is done on faith. Atheists (including agnostics) are still waiting for revelation of the truth of God, that God matches reality. Some theists claim to have had it. Good for them. But people can be mistaken, some deliberately lie, and personal testimony is (rightly in my view) not particularly convincing for such an important question. For others it is.
DaveC... That is not the premise Dave. You need to work with a proper definition of God before you can find out whether or not the claim is extraordinary. So what is YOUR definition of the God you don't believe in? You have no definition of God, so how can you posit such a reason. Are you prepared to discuss the concept of God, Dave? jan.
I do not think you are being fair, Jan. The scientific mindset, i.e. the discipline of thought that scientists use to understand the physical world, implicitly uses Ockham's Razor. In other words, no unnecessary additional hypotheses should be included in our account of things. That's to keep things as simple as we can, consistent with accounting for the observational evidence. And it works brilliantly well for its intended purpose. Some people (though I am not one) adopt this approach as an entire worldview. That is perfectly reasonable. They are under no obligation to define "God" in order to reject the concept, any more than they need to define a million other arbitrary concepts that are not necessary to an empirical, scientifically based worldview. This worldview strips away everything for which there is no objective physical evidence. There is a lot to be said for this: at the very least, it puts a lot of delusional junk and superstition in the bin and leads to a degree of clarity of thought. (Other people, among whom I include myself, find the scientific approach wholly satisfactory for the physical world, but not very helpful to account for other aspects of human experience, e.g. interpersonal, aesthetic, emotional and what some people call spiritual experiences. This makes me at the very least entertain some respect for religious ways of thinking, just as I find, history, tradition, music and literature helpful to make sense of what happens to me in life. It's an admittedly wishy-washy approach that is not logically watertight, but I am, personally, not prepared to forego what I think I would lose if I were to be a rigorous physical empiricist.) So I think the burden rests on you to define "God" in a way that Dave considers relevant to his worldview - if you can. I suspect you cannot, if Dave is one the people I have been describing above.
How can one describe God as an unnecessary additional hypotheses, without defining God. Oh but they do define God, to the point where it suits their world view (unnecessary additional hypotheses). Based on this segment, they define God yet again (for their own sakes) as arbitrary, unnecessary concepts. The real question is, why do they define God at all (albeit wrongly) for the sake of their work. We already know scientists aren't going to find God through their profession. I think Dave has a proper definition of God, but will not discuss it. I believe he is in denial. jan.
I repeat, you do not need to define a concept that is unnecessary to explaining what we observe. Does "God" appear, anywhere, in the theories of science? No of course not. Why not? Because no such concept is required for them to work. That's it, end of story. Whether or not Dave, or I, have a proper definition of God is irrelevant, if no such concept is required.
I'm not disputing that. I think we stand as much chance finding God through science as finding a real live miniature dinosaur in a Christmas cracker . My point is, they already define God by rendering God unnecessary, or a violation of Occam's Razor. jan.
Good, I'm pleased you and I are at one on your first sentence. However your last sentence is nonsense. Nobody, in any discipline, wastes time defining concepts they do not use. If they did, a musician would define, say, gravitation, because he does not use the concept. How absurd - don't be silly.
Right. I'd go even farther and say that many/most of the words we use don't even have precise definitions. Can anyone precisely define 'good' or 'beautiful' or 'cause' or 'true'? It seems to me that our words don't typically have definitions, what they have instead is a cloud of related but not always consistent uses that only bear a family resemblance to each other. Dictionaries describe word usage, as opposed to prescribing it. (That's one of the ways that technical and formal subjects like science and mathematics differ from everyday usage.) When people use the word 'God', they seem to me to mean a whole variety of things. Sometimes 'God' means the highly personalized deities portrayed variously in the Bible or the Quran. Hindus have adopted the English word to refer to their own Vishnu, Shiva or Krishna, depending on sect. Other people intend 'God' to refer to an impersonal ultimate principle such as Neoplatonism's 'One' or Advaita's 'Brahman'. Many people use 'God' in a much more vague way to mean 'higher power' or 'the transcendent'. And some use 'God' to refer to a more abstract philosophical function, such as 'first cause' or 'that which most ultimately exists'. And sometimes it's all kind of smeared together as with the concept of 'creator', which combines an idea like 'first cause' with the idea of a conscious, intentional and purposive craftsman. As for me, I'm an agnostic/atheist. 'God' isn't my concept and I probably would never have even thought of it if other people around me weren't talking about it. But they are, so when I use the word I typically use the word in the same manner as those around me are using it. My own views about the existence of 'God' are largely a function of the usage. I don't believe that the Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu, Shiva or Krishna personalities literally exist. But when it comes to the universe's first cause or why there is something rather than nothing, I have to say that I don't have a clue what the answer is (though I do suspect that there's something wrong with how these questions are being conceived).
In the same way one can rule out Russell's teapot without having to define what colour it is. The same way one can rule out perpetual motion machines (violates thermodynamics). The same way one can dismiss ghosts without examining each sighting. They are supernatural in origin. They are all supernatural in origin. By that criterion alone all ghosts can be categorically dismissed. So no, despite your insistence, it is not necessary to define something beyond a basic criterion in order to be able to categorize it. God is supernatural. Occam's Razor is sufficient for many rational people to not require the concept as part of an explanation of the universe.
Jan Ardena: And every time somebody tries to give a definition, you say, No, that's wrong. Then you come back with yet another demand for a definition. Obviously, they will give their definition, not yours. And they didn't make up the definition. Every time you ask: "What is it you don't believe?" they cite the god of the religion(s) they have witnessed, as described by the literature of those religions, or as told to them by believers in the god. Simply: In the context of the OP, the god named and described in the Old and New Testaments is the one most Americans either believe in or say they believe in. What I do not believe in is that one, along with all of the other gods of all the religious not mentioned herein (and yours). I don't need to name and define them individually, because the people who worship(ped) them had already done so, and their literature is available to study, should you require particulars.
Except mine. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Even Jan must concede that any definition of God is supernatural in origin. And on that criterion alone it can be seen by many to fail.
You think s/he will refute the assertion that God is supernatural? That would be interesting since it would mean that God could be quantified as a product of our known natural laws. It would be either bosonic or baryonic, would have mass, etc.
I have an idea of pink unicorns too. My idea of pink unicorns does not have to be the same as yours in order for me to surmise that the universe will survive without pink unicorns. Point of order: It looks like I am disparaging the concept God by comparing it to something as vacuous as pink unicorns. It is not my intention to do so, and I apologize for that. I need to find an example of something that doesn't exist but is not silly. Jan, et al, I do not have disrespect for you for your world view - it is a valid for you as mine is for me. I am simply explaining why human-made god is a reasonable world view, and the default for those of us who require sufficient evidence. That does not (should not) take away from your world. We simply disagree.
