A Theology Question

[Ross Dolan]

It was once believed that a dragon god was trying to swallow the sun. What was actually happening was a eclipse. Those people did not understand something, so they explained it with God. All due respet, but the highlighted is doing the exact same thing. You can't come up with an explanation, because we simply don't have the capability or the knowledge to understand the beginnings of the universe. If we could understand it, the explanation would be natural, it would not be supernatural. Because every phenomenon in the history of man that was attributed to a God turned out to be a natural occurrence.

Imagine if you were observing a basketball game for the first time, but your field of vision was so small that all you could see was a little portion of the rim. You don't know anything about basketball. Every once in a while, a ball would suddenly appear. Wow, it must be God doing that. How else would this magic ball suddenly appear out of nowhere and then vanish again.

Our scientific knowledge is that view of the universe. It takes years of scientific research to expand that view even a little. It may take hundreds of thousands of years before we finally see the men on the court. God should not fill those gaps. Belief in that entity removes our curiosity. We stop asking questions, because God is the answer. Sorry, but God has never been the answer, and I have no reason to believe that God will ever be.

Jesus H. Christ, Concart.

When I say, "I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist…that the existence of a GOD or gods is impossible"...I am acknowledging that a GOD or gods...MAY EXIST.

Of course it is a possibility that at least one god exists.

I am simply acknowledging that I can see no reason to assert, "It is impossible for a god to exist."

When I say, "I see no reason to suspect that at least one GOD must exist...that the existence of at least one GOD is needed to explain existence"...I am acknowledging that no gods may exist.

Of course it is a possibility that no gods exist.

I am simply acknowledging that I see no reason to assert, "At least one god is necessary to explain existence."

What is your problem with understanding that?

 

[Cypress]

What????

Of course I accept the possibility of gods existing. I also accept the possibility that no gods exist.

That is what I have been arguing all along.

So has Cypress.

We just acknowledge that we do not know which it is.

You're going to find that the bible thumpers will think you are an atheist, and the atheists will think you are a holy roller.

My theory is that hardcore atheists are loathe to admit any uncertainty about the limits of scientific inquiry, fearing it will give ammunition to the holy rollers.

While holy rollers are reticent to accept evolutionary biology and the power of the scientific method more broadly fearing, it would relegate their religion to irrelevance.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Religions are human beings' attempt to embrace and recognize the mystery of the infinite.

Not just the infinite. But literally everything they can't explain through obvious means. Religions have been invoked to control the harvests for example. Or understand why disasters hit.

I believe the only reason to make the preposterous comparison of the mystery of the infinite, to pink polka-dotted leprechauns is a passive-aggrressive attempt at inserting mockery of the beliefs of Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, and Hinduism.

No mockery is intended. This is just a discussion. Again, I ask: is it not similarly strange to talk about an invisible being who manifests himself as his son so that he may be sacrificed to himself to atone his creation to himself? That's Christianity.

I hope I am not offending your religious beliefs, that is not the intent. I sense, however, that this is a difficult subject to talk about because it is sensitive.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

My theory is that hardcore atheists are loathe to admit any uncertainty about the limits of scientific inquiry,

I think you misunderstand what many of us mean by "scientific inquiry". The examples I've given over and over and over on here related to inference and inferential statistics always keep in mind the possibility of error. It is always a matter of degree.

When I say I fail to reject the null hypothesis that there is no God, it is done with the knowledge that one day maybe sufficient evidence will come to me to alter my conclusion.

 

[Cypress]

Not just the infinite. But literally everything they can't explain through obvious means. Religions have been invoked to control the harvests for example. Or understand why disasters hit.



No mockery is intended. This is just a discussion. Again, I ask: is it not similarly strange to talk about an invisible being who manifests himself as his son so that he may be sacrificed to himself to atone his creation to himself? That's Christianity.

I hope I am not offending your religious beliefs, that is not the intent. I sense, however, that this is a difficult subject to talk about because it is sensitive.

I believe you are fully aware that comparing the beliefs of Judaism, Buddhism, et al. to be the effective equivalent of believing in pink polka-dotted leprechauns is an passive-aggressive way of inserting mockery of religion into the discussion.

It's highly doubtful you would say to your Jewish neighbors face that their beliefs are the equivalent of believing in elves, unicorns, and Loch Ness mobsters. You would undoubtedly stop yourself from taking it that far.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

I believe you are fully aware that comparing the beliefs of Judaism, Buddhism, et al. to be the effective equivalent of believing in pink polka-dotted leprechauns is an passive aggressive way of inserting mockery of religion into the discussion.

You are getting hung up on the words. But I apologize if I have offended your faith.

I do not believe you would say to your Jewish neighbors face that their beliefs are the equivalent of believing in elves, unicorns, and Loch Ness mobsters. You would undoubtedly stop yourself from taking it that far.

You seem overly sensitive to this topic. I will cease. My apologies.


(You will be offended to find talking snakes and talking donkeys in the Bible, though.)

 

[Concart]

Jesus H. Christ, Concart.

When I say, "I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist…that the existence of a GOD or gods is impossible"...I am acknowledging that a GOD or gods...MAY EXIST.

Of course it is a possibility that at least one god exists.

I am simply acknowledging that I can see no reason to assert, "It is impossible for a god to exist."

When I say, "I see no reason to suspect that at least one GOD must exist...that the existence of at least one GOD is needed to explain existence"...I am acknowledging that no gods may exist.

Of course it is a possibility that no gods exist.

I am simply acknowledging that I see no reason to assert, "At least one god is necessary to explain existence."

What is your problem with understanding that?

I didn't mean to frustrate you. I am focusing on that last assertion, 'at least one god is necessary to explain existence'. My question is, WHY do we have to explain existence? Why isn't 'we don't know yet' the go to answer? A thousand years from now, we will be looked at as savages. Some kid studying history will say 'you mean they didn't know about the existence of the Bachalain particle? How did they heat their homes? With what? Gas? ROTFLMFAO!!!'

My point is that we know an infinitesimal amount of what could be known. We are limited by technology and knowledge. I just see no reason to fill in all of that unknown with 'God'.

 

[Cypress]

It was once believed that a dragon god was trying to swallow the sun. What was actually happening was a eclipse. Those people did not understand something, so they explained it with God. All due respet, but the highlighted is doing the exact same thing. You can't come up with an explanation, because we simply don't have the capability or the knowledge to understand the beginnings of the universe. If we could understand it, the explanation would be natural, it would not be supernatural. Because every phenomenon in the history of man that was attributed to a God turned out to be a natural occurrence.

Imagine if you were observing a basketball game for the first time, but your field of vision was so small that all you could see was a little portion of the rim. You don't know anything about basketball. Every once in a while, a ball would suddenly appear. Wow, it must be God doing that. How else would this magic ball suddenly appear out of nowhere and then vanish again.

Our scientific knowledge is that view of the universe. It takes years of scientific research to expand that view even a little. It may take hundreds of thousands of years before we finally see the men on the court. God should not fill those gaps. Belief in that entity removes our curiosity. We stop asking questions, because God is the answer. Sorry, but God has never been the answer, and I have no reason to believe that God will ever be.

I don't accept religion in all dimensions. Religion and science have both been wrong about many things.

Science is self correcting.

Religions usually tend to evolve based on new knowledge.

While I do not accept religion in all it's dimensions, I am open to the possibilities that they suggest --> that there is a deeper purposeful organizing principle underlying what we percieve as reality, and that the possibility of transformation and transcendence might be achieved thorough religious experience.


On the other hand, the universe might have just blinked into existence for no reason, and it's possible we are just collections of quarks and electrons, meat puppets with no scientific or biological purpose other than to just survive. I think that is a possibility too.

 

[Concart]

I don't accept religion in all dimensions. Religion and science have both been wrong about many things.

Science is self correcting.

Religions usually tend to evolve based on new knowledge.

While I do not accept religion in all it's dimensions, I am open to the possibilities that they suggest --> that there is a deeper purposeful organizing principle underlying what we percieve as reality, and that the possibility of transformation and transcendence might be achieved thorough religious experience.


On the other hand, the universe might have just blinked into existence for no reason, and it's possible we are just collections of quarks and electrons, meat puppets with no scientific or biological purpose other than to just survive. I think that is a possibility too.

Thanks, I appreciate your thoughtful dialogue. Man may be the only species that understands that it will die. That knowledge, IMHO, has driven a need to make sense of the life we do have here. I'm very comfortable that I'm going to die, and I believe I will simply be gone. I wasn't here for billions of years, and I won't be here in the billions of years that follow. I think it makes this life more meaningful for me. My political and social beliefs come, I think from an empathy that makes me yearn for better for everyone. That's an honest statement. I wish I could always live like that, but sometimes I don't. But I think this is it for me, so I'm going to make the most of it, because it won't last forever. If I'm wrong, that's icing on the cake. If a truly loving God exists, then hell does not.

I used to dialogue with a wonderful man who was a minister in a church in KC. He said that his belief could be summed up with one statement. 'God is love'. I may not believe in God, but I know that''s a person who wants the same things I do. If I come across as a bit of a hardliner, it's because the bad aspects of religion are the ones that always get the attention. Sorry for the digression, but I feel like you can understand where I'm coming from, and I certainly understand where you are coming from. Thanks again.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I didn't mean to frustrate you. I am focusing on that last assertion, 'at least one god is necessary to explain existence'. My question is, WHY do we have to explain existence? Why isn't 'we don't know yet' the go to answer? A thousand years from now, we will be looked at as savages. Some kid studying history will say 'you mean they didn't know about the existence of the Bachalain particle? How did they heat their homes? With what? Gas? ROTFLMFAO!!!'

My point is that we know an infinitesimal amount of what could be known. We are limited by technology and knowledge. I just see no reason to fill in all of that unknown with 'God'.

I also see no reason to fill that all in with a god.

But I want to acknowledge that a god...A CREATOR GOD...could and might exist.

That is as important to me as acknowledging that a god, of any kind, may not exist...and may never have existed.

I do not want to give short shrift to either side, because I see no reason to do so....which accounts for the last sentence in that take of mine:

I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction on whether any gods exist or not...so I don't.

 

[Concart]

I also see no reason to fill that all in with a god.

But I want to acknowledge that a god...A CREATOR GOD...could and might exist.

That is as important to me as acknowledging that a god, of any kind, may not exist...and may never have existed.

I do not want to give short shrift to either side, because I see no reason to do so....which accounts for the last sentence in that take of mine:

I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction on whether any gods exist or not...so I don't.

Fair enough. Some of this is semantics, you could call my junior high science kid as God, and that God would indeed be a part of the natural world. So your position is perfectly understandable.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

My most fervent wish is that an afterlife does not exist
because everlasting life in any environment
could not possibly be anything
but the most stultifyingly gruesome hell.

Eternity is a long fucking time.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I think you misunderstand what many of us mean by "scientific inquiry". The examples I've given over and over and over on here related to inference and inferential statistics always keep in mind the possibility of error. It is always a matter of degree.

When I say I fail to reject the null hypothesis that there is no God, it is done with the knowledge that one day maybe sufficient evidence will come to me to alter my conclusion.

Can you come up with any scenario where sufficient, unambiguous evidence will come up for you to alter your rejection of the null hypothesis, "There are no gods."

I have attempted for a very, very long time to conceive of any way it could happen...and have come to the conclusion such evidence CAN NEVER ARISE.

Just give me, if you are willing, an idea of what you suppose could happen to get you to alter.

ASIDE: I have on several occasions been asked the opposite equivalent. What could arise that would change you to someone who acknowledges that there is a GOD. My response has always been a version of:

The only way I could ever be sure, is if a GOD were inclined to impart certainty in me that I could differentiate from delusion (something a GOD should be able to do)...OR...

...by a communication from something purporting to be a GOD saying, "I will cause the planet Jupiter to disappear from what you call the Solar System at 1:00 PM on next Thursday. Your astronomers can verify that they cannot locate the planet...and that the disturbances (which will be considerable and detectable) indicate that the planet no longer exists in this system...and will return it to its proper place and orbit at 1:00 PM three days later in your time reconning.

I recognize this might be accomplishable by a sufficiently advanced alien form, but I would accept it as proof of a God. Anyone or anything that could do that...would be GOD enough for me.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Arthur C. Clarke

 

[Ross Dolan]

Fair enough. Some of this is semantics, you could call my junior high science kid as God, and that God would indeed be a part of the natural world. So your position is perfectly understandable.

Thank you. I have often mentioned that anything and everything that exists...is a part of nature. There is no supernatural that I can see. There surely are things and dimensions that humans are not able to detect or understand...but if they exist, they are part of what exists, which is nature.

If ghosts exist...they are not supernatural. If a GOD exists...it is natural...not supernatural.

Others may disagree...and disagree strongly.

Okay, I accept that.

 

[Cypress]

Thank you. I have often mentioned that anything and everything that exists...is a part of nature. There is no supernatural that I can see. There surely are things and dimensions that humans are not able to detect or understand...but if they exist, they are part of what exists, which is nature.

If ghosts exist...they are not supernatural. If a GOD exists...it is natural...not supernatural.

Others may disagree...and disagree strongly.

Okay, I accept that.

We tend to be prisoners of language.

The words natural and supernatural are constructs of the human mind which have no meaning or reality apart from our mind. If some kind of creative organizing principle beyond human comprehension underlies reality, that makes it real, not supernatural. The fact we cannot comprehend or correctly interpret it is a limitation of our primate brains

 

[Dutch Uncle]

We tend to be prisoners of language.

The words natural and supernatural are constructs of the human mind which have no meaning or reality apart from our mind. If some kind of creative organizing principle beyond human comprehension underlies reality, that makes it real, not supernatural. The fact we cannot comprehend or correctly interpret it is a limitation of our primate brains

Agreed. Like talking about “before” the Big Bang, which means “before” Space-Time began.

People should be clearer about if they were talking about something inside the Universe or outside of it. Like Stretch’s ghost-hunting scam, there’s zero evidence of supernatural phenomena inside the Natural Universe. There’s a reason why stories of magic and miracles diminished in the Industrial Age.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Can you come up with any scenario where sufficient, unambiguous evidence will come up for you to alter your rejection of the null hypothesis, "There are no gods."

How am I to know that?

I have attempted for a very, very long time to conceive of any way it could happen...and have come to the conclusion such evidence CAN NEVER ARISE.

You are unable to speak about the content of my mind in this area. If that is your feeling then fine.

To be quite honest I probably would have settled for a simple "feeling of connection" to God when I was in my darkest hours. But those days are long gone.

Here's a possible miracle that I would accept: the total elimination of SCRUPULOSITY as a disease my miraculous means. (ie not medicine).

The reason I like that example is because scrupulosity is a disease in which someone's faith becomes a horror. I've met people who suffer this who truly believe in and love the Lord but who live in abject terror all the time that they are blaspheming or offending God. It's a mental illness in the OCD spectrum and probably related to serotonin systems or some such.

If God wished to communicate with me perhaps he could have cured my scrupulosity before it effectively destroyed my desire for faith. But apparently God is OK with some people suffering for their belief in Him. That makes no theological sense to me and as such represents a grotesque logic failure for the "God Hypothesis".

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Thank you. I have often mentioned that anything and everything that exists...is a part of nature. There is no supernatural that I can see. There surely are things and dimensions that humans are not able to detect or understand...but if they exist, they are part of what exists, which is nature.

If ghosts exist...they are not supernatural. If a GOD exists...it is natural...not supernatural.

Others may disagree...and disagree strongly.

Okay, I accept that.

I think that it is OK for God to be largely "supernatural" but clearly He has (in the view of the believer) a NATURAL COMPONENT which can be experienced by some and hence "testable". Is it real or is it the believers' imagination?

 

[Saint Guinefort]

My most fervent wish is that an afterlife does not exist
because everlasting life in any environment
could not possibly be anything
but the most stultifyingly gruesome hell.

Eternity is a long fucking time.

In the words of the Blood Sweat and Tears: "I can swear there ain't no heaven, but I pray there ain't no hell".


(Agreed on the idea of ANY eternity becoming boring. )

 

[Cypress]

I think you misunderstand what many of us mean by "scientific inquiry". The examples I've given over and over and over on here related to inference and inferential statistics always keep in mind the possibility of error. It is always a matter of degree.

When I say I fail to reject the null hypothesis that there is no God, it is done with the knowledge that one day maybe sufficient evidence will come to me to alter my conclusion.

Correlation says nothing about causation.

I could create a dataset showing a high degree of correlation between ice cream consumption and drowning.

But eating ice cream does not cause drowning. There are other casual factors in drowning that have not been captured in the analysis.



I also think it's ridiculous to believe that all questions can be answered or analyzed by graphing them and having R do a correlation test.