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

[Cypress]

You didn't answer my question. Why can't everyone perceive the "self evidence"?

Short answer: I don't know.

Medium answer: I specifically avoided making any claim that reacting to General Revelation is universal.

Longer answer: I think a lot of atheists are not actually genuinely atheist to the core. A lot of them are reluctant to say matter and energy adequately explains life, the universe, and everything; reluctant to say love is nothing more than a chemical reaction between molecules; and few are willing to enthusiastically embrace moral relativism.

In other words, many of them are highly reticent to admit it, but they seem to have an innate sense that there is something more beyond matter and energy, and they can't help but to frequently appeal to a standard that is beyond human opinion or whim.

 

[Cypress]

Humans have a need to solve problems and explain everything. Throughout most of history, people have put whatever is unexplainable at the time into the bucket of "god". As technology progresses, we continue to find scientific explanations for most phenomena in life. "Divine natural order" can be explained by understanding the formation of the universe, the orbits of planets, chemistry, physics, and biology. Moral law does not require religion. In fact, I have always found it bizarre that so many religious people credit their goodness to their religion when goodness can (and should) exist in the absence of religion. Even more, so many religious people are as far from "good" as people can be, so supposed divinity or faith certainly does not enforce "moral law".

Thanks for your insight.

Physics discovers universal mathmatical laws and makes accurate predictions about how matter and energy move and interact.

Physics is silent on why this cosmos is organized along a rational mathmatical and finely-tuned framework, silent on why these universal laws exist, or where they come from.

Einstein famously said the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it's comprehensible

Biology is a descriptive and semi-quantitative science which really doesn't reveal universal laws, because no one knows whether the biochemistry and genetics of Earth's life is unique. Biology is silent on the origin of life, and whether or not the science is actually discovering anything fundamentally universal.

Some eminent scientists actually say science strengthens their religious beliefs.

 

[Cypress]

Humans perceived a providential origin in the design of nature or they wanted to believe in one?

I don't know. But evolution equipped our minds to tend to be spiritual and to transcend everyday reality.

What evidence is there of a god?

There's no empirical (observational) evidence. The evidence for God is always based on reason (logic).

The classic logical arguments for God are the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, and the moral argument

 

[Diesel]

Short answer: I don't know.

Medium answer: I specifically avoided making any claim that reacting to General Revelation is universal.

Longer answer: I think a lot of atheists are not actually genuinely atheist to the core. A lot of them are reluctant to say matter and energy adequately explains life, the universe, and everything; reluctant to say love is nothing more than a chemical reaction between molecules; and few are willing to enthusiastically embrace moral relativism.

In other words, many of them are highly reticent to admit it, but they seem to have an innate sense that there is something more beyond matter and energy, and they can't help but to frequently appeal to a standard that is beyond human opinion or whim.

That is not what I could call an atheist. I have never witnessed evidence of a god, but I can't prove that one or more don't exist. I also think that modern science explains most natural phenomena relatively well, so I don't have "an innate sense that there is something more beyond matter and energy". 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. That's why I call myself agnostic. I have had this conversation with thousands of people and not one single one has been able to substantiate a rational belief in god.

 

[gmark77]

Short answer: I don't know. I hit up Google AI and it didn't help.

ftfy

Longer answer: I think a lot of atheists are not actually genuinely atheist to the core.

You understand how offensive that is, don't you?

I think you are a believer, a real thumper, a real Jesus botherer, but you are scared to look less intelligent so you play "agnostic". That way you get to act all "smart and above it all" while not insulting God.

You'll be OK. Jebus lubs you.

Does it feel good to have someone tell you what you think? If you don't like it, then don't do it?

Why do you talk about morality while you have none yourself?

 

[Diesel]

Thanks for your insight.

Physics discovers universal mathmatical laws and makes accurate predictions about how matter and energy move and interact.

Physics is silent on why this cosmos is organized along a rational mathmatical and finely-tuned framework, silent on why these universal laws exist, or where they come from.

Einstein famously said the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it's comprehensible

Biology is a descriptive and semi-quantitative science which really doesn't reveal universal laws, because no one knows whether the biochemistry and genetics of Earth's life is unique. Biology is silent on the origin of life, and whether or not the science is actually discovering anything fundamentally universal.

Some eminent scientists actually say science strengthens their religious beliefs.

We certainly haven't conquered all of physics' questions, but we have taken out a big chunk.

Abiogenesis is the general hypothesis between biology, chemistry, and planetary science. Belief in a god is just a way of acknowledging that we don't understand everything.

 

[Diesel]

I don't know. But evolution equipped our minds to tend to be spiritual and to transcend everyday reality.

There's no empirical (observational) evidence. The evidence for God is always based on reason (logic).

The classic logical arguments for God are the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, and the moral argument

You can put it that way. I would say it differently. Evolution equipped our minds to be curious and to want to solve problems and understand literally everything. We don't become spiritual because a holy spirit compels us. We do it because that's the easiest way to manage the frustration that comes from not being able to fully satisfy our curiosity, solve all our problems, and understand everything. It's the free space on a bingo card. Whatever we can't completely comprehend or control we put into a square called "god".

There is not a single reason- or logic-based justification for belief in a god. You're free to try to rebut that statement.

The fact that you conceded that there is no empirical or observational evidence in a god makes spirituality irrational on its face.

 

[gmark77]

We certainly haven't conquered all of physics' questions, but we have taken out a big chunk.

Abiogenesis is the general hypothesis between biology, chemistry, and planetary science. Belief in a god is just a way of acknowledging that we don't understand everything.

God of the Gaps is the weakest theological gambit.

 

[Cypress]

That is not what I could call an atheist.

Agreed. But the fact is when I have pushed most atheists to the logical conclusions of their worldview, they become extremely reticent to embrace a strict physical materialist explanation of life, and they are extremely reluctant to call themselves moral relativists.

That's why I think people who are genuinely committed atheists to the core are not common.

I have never witnessed evidence of a god, but I can't prove that one or more don't exist. I also think that modern science explains most natural phenomena relatively well, so I don't have "an innate sense that there is something more beyond matter and energy". 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. That's why I call myself agnostic.

I have a hard time imagining love between spouses is nothing more than a chemical reaction between electrons. Chemistry is deterministic, and if true love is just chemical and deterministic, then love cannot be freely given.

For that matter, free will can't exist

I have had this conversation with thousands of people and not one single one has been able to substantiate a rational belief in god.

It's not based on science and math. The arguments for God are based on logical inference. They most widely accepted theist arguments are rational. That doesn't neccessarily mean they are true, but they are justified logically

 

[Diesel]

God of the Gaps is the weakest theological gambit.

I think it's the basis of most spirituality. I have yet to have a single person explain to me in physical terms why they believe in god.

 

[gmark77]

Agreed. But the fact is when I have pushed most atheists to the logical conclusions of their worldview, they become

Bull fucking shit. You only THINK you are scoring some points.

You don't understand atheism so you want them to comport to your cartoon failure.

That's a STRAWMAN. Go ahead and hit up Google AI to help you understand why that's a flawed means of debate.

Don't worry, some day Google AI will teach you enough to keep up.

When you (a "fake agnostic") are pushed on your position you usually just run away and don't answer.

 

[Diesel]

Agreed. But the fact is when I have pushed most atheists to the logical conclusions of their worldview, they become extremely reticent to embrace a strict physical materialist explanation of life, and they are extremely reluctant to call themselves moral relativists.

That's why I think people who are genuinely committed atheists to the core are not common.

I say the same thing about libertarians.

I have a hard time imagining love between spouses is nothing more than a chemical reaction between electrons. Chemistry is deterministic, and if true love is just chemical and deterministic, then love cannot be freely given.

For that matter, free will can't exist

That's nice. I never said anything close to that. In fact, in the post you quoted, I included "emotional energy" as one of the influences that form our perception of reality. Chemistry cannot fully explain why and how we love others, but I surely don't need to assign it to "god".

It's not based on science and math. The arguments for God are based on logical inference. They most widely accepted theist arguments are rational. That doesn't neccessarily mean they are true, but they are justified logically

There is no logical or rational argument that supports belief in a god. I already invited you to rebut the statement, but you chose not to.

 

[gmark77]

I think it's the basis of most spirituality. I have yet to have a single person explain to me in physical terms why they believe in god.

It certainly is for folks like @Cypress. Note his gambit of "I can't imagine love being just chemical reactions". It's his personal incredulity of a point that underlies his "faith" (or whatever he is trying to call it...he's always dodgy about his actual position, calling himself an "agnostic" while fiercely defending the faith.)

This whole "I can't imagine it so it must be GOD" approach is intellectually weak which is probably why that poster prefers it. It's simple thought for a simple mind.

 

[gmark77]

That's nice. I never said anything close to that.

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.

You'll get used to it after a while.

Chemistry cannot fully explain why and how we love others, but I surely don't need to assign it to "god".

Correct. I'll go further and say that yeah, chemistry can explain it. Our attempts to answer the question "Does my dog love me" requires we put the dog into an fMRI and see how the chemicals function in the brain.

Apparently Cy thinks love can exist without a brain being involved. Like some sort of floating hearts in the sky or something. I don't dare try to imagine what he thinks.

But love can be explained by physical things. It just can. We can actually induce love with chemicals.

There is no logical or rational argument that supports belief in a god. I already invited you to rebut the statement, but you chose not to.

His rebuttal is the usual "Fine tuning" and "Cosmological" arguments. Pretty bog standard and just as easily dismissed if he understood them.

 

[Diesel]

It certainly is for folks like @Cypress. Note his gambit of "I can't imagine love being just chemical reactions". It's his personal incredulity of a point that underlies his "faith" (or whatever he is trying to call it...he's always dodgy about his actual position, calling himself an "agnostic" while fiercely defending the faith.)

This whole "I can't imagine it so it must be GOD" approach is intellectually weak which is probably why that poster prefers it. It's simple thought for a simple mind.

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.

 

[Cypress]

You can put it that way. I would say it differently. Evolution equipped our minds to be curious and to want to solve problems and understand literally everything. We don't become spiritual because a holy spirit compels us. We do it because that's the easiest way to manage the frustration that comes from not being able to fully satisfy our curiosity, solve all our problems, and understand everything. It's the free space on a bingo card. Whatever we can't completely comprehend or control we put into a square called "god".

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.

There is not a single reason- or logic-based justification for belief in a god. You're free to try to rebut that statement.

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.

The fact that you conceded that there is no empirical or observational evidence in a god makes spirituality irrational on its face.

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.

 

[Diesel]

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.

You'll get used to it after a while.



Correct. I'll go further and say that yeah, chemistry can explain it. Our attempts to answer the question "Does my dog love me" requires we put the dog into an fMRI and see how the chemicals function in the brain.

Apparently Cy thinks love can exist without a brain being involved. Like some sort of floating hearts in the sky or something. I don't dare try to imagine what he thinks.

But love can be explained by physical things. It just can. We can actually induce love with chemicals.



His rebuttal is the usual "Fine tuning" and "Cosmological" arguments. Pretty bog standard and just as easily dismissed if he understood them.

You really think love can be completely explained by physical things? You could be right. I'm just not sure myself. I identify as pansexual, so my romantic journey has been very different from almost everyone else I know. My sense of attraction is very different from the other people I know, especially most men. Our brains and glands are different, but I think that some other things influence what we call "love". I'm not going to call it spirituality or god or fate or anything like that, but I think that emotional energy that we can't currently observe or measure exchanges between people when they experience love. That part might exceed the capabilities of modern science to explain.

 

[gmark77]

Does he identify as agnostic?

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

I say the same thing about bashful Republicans who call themselves libertarians for public relations.

Agreed.

 

[gmark77]

You really think love can be completely explained by physical things?

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".

You could be right. I'm just not sure myself.

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.

 

[Cypress]

I say the same thing about libertarians.

That's nice. I never said anything close to that. In fact, in the post you quoted, I included "emotional energy" as one of the influences that form our perception of reality. Chemistry cannot fully explain why and how we love others, but I surely don't need to assign it to "god".

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

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

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.

There is no logical or rational argument that supports belief in a god. I already invited you to rebut the statement, but you chose not to.

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

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.