If God were real, you wouldn’t need a book

[Cypress]

Bull fucking shit!

ftfy...Time for your meds, Perry?

 

[Diesel]

Out of four billion years and millions of species, we are the only life forms that ever acquired the ability for abstract thought and the ability to transcend ourselves.

That's curious.

These abilities were not necessary for social organization and social cooperation, other higher animals have been doing that for eons.

I don't think it's something that and be easily explained and then casually swept under the carpet.

Scientists love unanswered questions and mysteries. And this is one of the biggest mysteries of all.


The logical arguments for god are the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the moral argument. The esteemed philosopher Anselm created a logical argument for god that is still studied in universities today.

Nobody has to agree with these arguments. But we simply can't say there are no logical arguments for god.

There is a lot of human knowledge which doesn't, or can't, depend on empirical evidence. A lot of human knowledge has to come from reason and logic, not from observation and sense perception. The concepts of infinity, the imaginary number i, and the belief that everything about life, the universe, and everything is rationally intelligible are arguments based on logic, not on empiricism.

Let's take this one part at a time.

4.5 billion years, but who's counting? Who is "we" and why do you think "we" are the only life forms that ever acquired the ability for abstract thought and "the ability to transcend ourselves"? Where did you hear that? Why do you believe it?

The cosmological argument says that everything exists for a reason, so there must be a first, uncaused reason called god. That is not rational. Perhaps not everything exists for a reason. Perhaps spontaneous chemical reactions caused abiogenesis without the intervention of an intentional power that controls the entire universe but has never been observed by a single living being ever.

I've already addressed the teleological argument multiple times. It's nonsense. If you can't understand why the human nervous system is so complex, the Fibonacci spirals of sunflowers, and the flight formations of migrating geese, then you need to go back to school.

I've also addressed the moral argument. It's not just nonsense. It's an offensive cop out. If you can't find a way to act like a decent, normal human being without giving credit for that goodness to "god", then you are a shitty person. I am an outstanding, upstanding, moral, generous human because I was raised that way and I choose to be. I have no reason to believe that a god I don't know made those decisions for me. I'd much rather be personally accountable for living a righteous life.

Anselm lived in the 11th century. His was the ontological argument. He claimed that god exists by definition. Now let that sink in. Then I want you to contemplate exactly how irrational that is and why you would allow your AI answer to make even less sense than everything else you said.

Nothing you presented was logical or rational. I don't necessarily mind people who are religious. As someone who believes in unseen energy, I often consider myself some sort of spiritual that isn't religious. But in all my life, no one has ever been able to produce a logical or rational justification for a belief in god. Do you identify as agnostic?

 

[Diesel]

Yes. But it's a strange agnosticism as you will note he despises atheism (doesn't understand it), and he fights to defend Christianity quite aggressively for someone who is "agnostic".



Cy is a special type of debater. Cy is primarily on JPP to show off and get people to realize he's the smartest person online. He will tell you ad nauseam about what he's read and name-drop like he's at the Oscars.

His pugilistic behavior in defense of religion is quite interesting. My theory is he's actually a believer to some greater or lesser extent but the aforementioned need for people to think he's super-duper smart means he can't let anyone know that lest it would somehow reflect poorly on him (not an uncommon feeling of self-doubt for a religious person, also not accurate, plenty of really smart people can be believers). So he feigns "agnosticism" but hates hates hates all expressions of a lack of belief.

There's always the possibility he's a "deist" if those still walk among us. His belief system is weird and convoluted with a god who creates but also makes morality (?) or some such. He believes in a lot of supernatural, extra-natural things just because he discovered "verbs" in the language.



That's what I think he's doing. I could be quite wrong. He never fully breaks, but his utter hatred of all things atheist and his fierce defense of a real-life Jesus (sans the miracles, from what I can gather) makes him look quite more like a believer than an agnostic.




Agreed.

I haven't even gotten to Jesus with him. I was just discussing god and spirituality in general. If he's a closet Christian, then I really have no need for him.

 

[Diesel]

I think it is a possibility. I'm not 100% "love is only purely physical" but right now that's all the data I have to work with.

I think of it from the other side: can love be induced by physical means and yes, we can alter people's moods and feelings of affection with the right drugs which means if it can be synthesized out of whole cloth (with chemicals) then it is probably chemicals.

The hard part of that description is that it leaves out "intent". But some studies show that actual "intent" in the brain precedes conscious formulation of said intent (see "Whose in Charge" by Gazzaniga) and there's a module in the left brain that creates ad hoc justifications for the intent. The study of "split brain" individuals showed some pretty astounding things we do with our brains that defy rational explanations. Certainly call into question "free will" and "intent".



And I may very well be 100% wrong. Like you I am not sure. But I try to keep the explanatory variables in any question down to a limited number that covers everything I have access to. Beyond that I can know nothing.

I guess that's the agnosticism of love. We just don't know for sure.

I agree that attraction can be induced physically, but I'm not totally sure that we can transform attraction into love chemically. It's certainly possible.

Intent and consent are both integral components of successful interpersonal interactions. That's the part I'm not sure can be replicated purely physically. There might be an emotional energy that we can't see or fabricate that influences relationships.

 

[Cypress]

Let's take this one part at a time.

4.5 billion years, but who's counting? Who is "we"

Homo sapiens

and why do you think "we" are the only life forms that ever acquired the ability for abstract thought and "the ability to transcend ourselves"? Where did you hear that? Why do you believe it?

There is no evidence ants, aardvarks, and antelope have religion, abstract thought, any ability beyond instinct to transcend the experiences of their daily lives

The cosmological argument says that everything exists for a reason, so there must be a first, uncaused reason called god. That is not rational. Perhaps not everything exists for a reason. Perhaps spontaneous chemical reactions caused abiogenesis without the intervention of an intentional power that controls the entire universe but has never been observed by a single living being ever.

I've already addressed the teleological argument multiple times. It's nonsense. If you can't understand why the human nervous system is so complex, the Fibonacci spirals of sunflowers, and the flight formations of migrating geese, then you need to go back to school.

I've also addressed the moral argument. It's not just nonsense. It's an offensive cop out. If you can't find a way to act like a decent, normal human being without giving credit for that goodness to "god", then you are a shitty person. I am an outstanding, upstanding, moral, generous human because I was raised that way and I choose to be. I have no reason to believe that a god I don't know made those decisions for me. I'd much rather be personally accountable for living a righteous life.

Anselm lived in the 11th century. His was the ontological argument. He claimed that god exists by definition. Now let that sink in. Then I want you to contemplate exactly how irrational that is and why you would allow your AI answer to make even less sense than everything else you said.

It may seem irrational to you, but people smarter than you and me have been convinced by them. I don't know myself what the truth is.

It seems like you only read about them in a cursory way for five minutes, are you sure that's enough to adequately understand them?

We don't have a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the finely tuned and mathmatical nature of the cosmos.

It's perfectly rational to logically infer there is some purposeful organizing principle giving rise to the order, design, and mathmatical rationality of the cosmos. It does not seem like a stupid line of inference to me.

Nothing you presented was logical or rational. I don't necessarily mind people who are religious. As someone who believes in unseen energy, I often consider myself some sort of spiritual that isn't religious.

Right, it seems like strict physical materialism does not completely make sense, and we have some innate awareness of something beyond matter and energy.

But in all my life, no one has ever been able to produce a logical or rational justification for a belief in god.

okay, that's your opinion.

Do you identify as agnostic?

I'm a truth seeker.
There is no label that strictly applies to me, and while I can't categorically rule out that nothing exists but matter and energy, I have been leaning more towards seeing the logic of a purposeful organizing principle underlying the universe.

 

[Diesel]

Good, so we agree that matter and energy are not adequate explanations of life, the universe, and everything.

No, we don't. I never said that. In fact, I said the exact opposite. Please stop misrepresenting my statements.

"In fact, my best guess is that our perception of reality is entirely created by matter and energy, including the emotional energy that living creatures experience."

We seem to have an innate sense there is something beyond matter and energy.

I'll ask again. Who is "we"? I don't share your "innate sense", so you need to identify this "we".

I have no idea what emotional energy is. I doubt anyone on this board can really describe and explain it. Honestly, it sounds like just an ad hoc term to represent something we do not understand.

You just described god.

I cited all the conventional logical arguments for god that have been in circulation for years.

And I destroyed all 4 of them.

I don't think atheists are even addressing their strongest argument against god.

It's not a strong argument to say Christian are irrational, poorly educated, illogical. There are way too many Christians who have won Nobel prizes in physics for that to fly.

The strong argument is that if there is a god, he seems hidden and incapable of revealing itself.

Are you insane? I'm not an atheist. I can't prove that god doesn't exist any more than anyone else can prove that it does. I don't care what you consider "not a strong argument". Christians are irrational and illogical. By definition. There is no workaround for that. I never said poorly educated. You made that up yourself, but you're right about it.

"If there is a god, he seems hidden and incapable of revealing itself." I would think that the god that most people believe in would be capable of everything. Either way, I already told you I'm agnostic. You are very clearly a religious person who won't admit it, which is a bright red flag for me.

 

[Diesel]

Homo sapiens

Who told you that homo sapiens are the only life forms that ever acquired the ability for abstract thought and the ability to transcend themselves? Why do you believe that?

There is no evidence ants, aardvarks, and antelope have religion, abstract thought, any ability beyond instinct to transcend the experiences of their daily lives

There's no evidence for god either. There's also no evidence that ants, aardvarks, and antelope don't experience abstract thought and any ability beyond instinct to transcend the experiences of their daily lives. How would you know? Do you realize how much you're contradicting yourself?

It may seem irrational to you, but people smarter than you and me have been convinced by them. I don't know myself what the truth is.

I don't care who has been convinced by irrational arguments. They're still irrational.

It seems like you only read about them in a cursory way for five minutes, are you sure that's enough to adequately understand them?

We don't have a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the finely tuned and mathmatical nature of the cosmos.

It's perfectly rational to logically infer there is some purposeful organizing principle giving rise to the order, design, and mathmatical rationality of the cosmos. It does not seem like a stupid line of inference to me.

It is the opposite of rational and logical. Believe what you want to believe, but you seem not to understand what those words mean.

Right, it seems like strict physical materialism does not completely make sense, and we have some innate awareness of something beyond matter and energy.

To you, apparently.

okay, that's your opinion.

It's not an opinion. It's a statement of fact.

I'm a truth seeker.
There is no label that strictly applies to me, and while I can't categorically rule out that nothing exists but matter and energy, I have been leaning more towards seeing the logic of a purposeful organizing principle underlying the universe.

I see. Just know that there is no logic related to believing in a god.

 

[Cypress]

Who told you that homo sapiens are the only life forms that ever acquired the ability for abstract thought and the ability to transcend themselves? Why do you believe that?

Sorry, you're beyond reason if you want to have a debate that ants and antelopes have spirituality and the cognitive ability for transcendent and abstract thinking.

There's no evidence for god either. There's also no evidence that ants, aardvarks, and antelope don't experience abstract thought and any ability beyond instinct to transcend the experiences of their daily lives. How would you know? Do you realize how much you're contradicting yourself?

I don't care who has been convinced by irrational arguments. They're still irrational.

It is the opposite of rational and logical. Believe what you want to believe, but you seem not to understand what those words mean.

To you, apparently.

It's not an opinion. It's a statement of fact.

I see. Just know that there is no logic related to believing in a god.

Practically Everything we're talking about here is opinion. The only thing that counts is whether opinion is justified by reason and logic - not whether you agree with it.

I do not know if it's true, but to me it is a perfectly sound logical inference that every action has a cause; the orgin of the universe has a first cause; that cause cannot be inanimate or random; because order, design, and mathmatical organization do not come from inanimate chance. Therefore, there is some purposeful and rational organizing principle at the heart of everything.

That's a perfectly good logical inference.

You don't have to agree with that, but I don't think you can say it is irrational.

That's my two cents

 

[Cypress]

That doesn't matter. @Cypress needs to fight against points he understands. Since he almost never understands anyone's point (he's kinda dim) he usually just recrafts it like a strawman and sets fire to that.

Here's is a guy who can offer a fair and impartial analysis of me - A guy who has had about a dozen different names and sock puppets, lied about it everything time, relentlessly follows me around with his petty grievances, and has a history of screaming rants at me in large font, ALL CAPS, bold red text.

Yep, that's an impartial judge of me, lol

 

[Diesel]

Sorry, you're beyond reason if you want to have a debate that ants and antelopes have spirituality and the cognitive ability for transcendent and abstract thinking.

How do you know they don't? Do you think all humans are capable of those "special" attributes you claim were gifted to us by god? I don't mind your spirituality and opinion, but you are not a rational person.

Practically Everything we're talking about here is opinion. The only thing that counts is whether opinion is justified by reason and logic - not whether you agree with it.

It is not my opinion that faith is irrational. That is a fact.

I do not know if it's true, but to me it is a perfectly sound logical inference that every action has a cause; the orgin of the universe has a first cause; that cause cannot be inanimate or random; because order, design, and mathmatical organization do not come from inanimate chance. Therefore, there is some purposeful and rational organizing principle at the heart of everything.

All of that is random assumption completely untethered from any logical thought process. You make declarative statements as if they're true, which is the basis of the ontological argument, which I already demonstrated is nonsense.

That's a perfectly good logical inference.

You don't have to agree with that, but I don't think you can say it is irrational.

That's my two cents

 

[Cypress]

Does he identify as agnostic? I assume so considering your exchange here. If so, he is taking an unusually defensive approach (in favor of religion) in his responses to me. I don't understand the contradiction.

Now, if he's just embarrassed of being religious and calls himself agnostic for appearance purposes, then I don't have time or patience for people who are not honest with and about themselves. I say the same thing about bashful Republicans who call themselves libertarians for public relations.

It's funny how you're taking character references about me from a poster who has used multiple sock puppets and had relentlessly lurked me for years with his imaginary petty grievances.

I don't think I would accept character references about you from sock puppets and people I don't know.

Perry, aka Gmark is always trying to derail threads and make them about his petty grievances about me. If you need to know something about me, just ask me rather than asking for character references from random people

 

[Cypress]

How do you know they don't? Do you think all humans are capable of those "special" attributes you claim were gifted to us by god? I don't mind your spirituality and opinion, but you are not a rational person.

It is not my opinion that faith is irrational. That is a fact.

All of that is random assumption completely untethered from any logical thought process. You make declarative statements as if they're true, which is the basis of the ontological argument, which I already demonstrated is nonsense.

I'm open to hearing your logical deductions for animals have religion, spirituality, and higher abstract thinking capabilities.

If you want to think I'm an irrational and illogical person, that's up to you.

Presumably, as sentient beings we are each on our own paths to knowledge and truth

 

[Diesel]

It's funny how you're taking character references about me from a poster who has used multiple sock puppets and had relentlessly lurked me for years with his imaginary petty grievances.

I don't think I would accept character references about you from sock puppets and people I don't know.

Perry, aka Gmark is always trying to derail threads and make them about his petty grievances about me. If you need to know something about me, just ask me rather than asking for character references from random people

I didn't ask for a character reference. I didn't accept a character reference. I asked him and I asked you if you identify as agnostic. I got my answers. Relax.

 

[Diesel]

I'm open to hearing your logical deductions for animals have religion, spirituality, and higher abstract thinking capabilities.

I don't know for a fact that they don't. Neither do you. It's the exact same thing as a belief in god.

If you want to think I'm an irrational and illogical person, that's up to you.

You are.

Presumably, as sentient beings we are each on our own paths to knowledge and truth

Hopefully.

 

[Cypress]

Christians are irrational and illogical. By definition. There is no workaround for that.

Being agnostic means to me being open to the possibility of the truth of either atheism or religion.

Being agnostic does not mean hating Christians, demeaning them, being hostile to them, or treating them collectively as irrational dupes.

I invested a lot of time impartially investigating the truth claims of both the atheist world view and the religious worldview.

I ultimately decided there's probably more than just matter and energy to life, the universe, and everything. So at at this particular stage, I place the weight of evidence more on things like a spiritual or transcendent world view.

But that doesn't mean I'm not still skeptical about religion. In fact, genuine Bible thumpers on this website call me an atheist.