Landsburg versus the LORD
[Editor’s note: People had such fun with “The Economist Zone” that I thought the same vehicle might be useful on this grander topic. In contrast to the debate over the government debt, however, on these weighty matters I’m not as sure what Steve Landsburg’s views are, and I have even less confidence in the statements I attribute to the other Actor in this dialog. I hope both of them will forgive me if I innocently misrepresent them. In any event, the following might offer a new perspective on these matters for some readers.–RPM]
Landsburg versus the LORD
After a freak accident, University of Rochester economist–and published atheist–Steve Landsburg faces his maker. The following conversation ensues.
Landsburg: (stunned) You exist! I can’t believe it!
The LORD: Your word choice is very revealing.
Landsburg: (shock turning to alarm) Look, heh heh, I hope there are no hard feelings. I mean really, I was just using the brain that–now I know!–you gave me. Thanks, by the way. But the only reason I was telling everyone you didn’t exist, was that you did a pretty good job hiding yourself. I wasn’t the only skeptic, after all. Just about all the rational, scientific people came to the same conclusion, so you really can’t blame us.
The LORD: Do the ranks of the rational, scientific people not include Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Faraday, Mendel, Newton, and Einstein? They didn’t share the same view of me, but they all knew I existed.
Landsburg: Of course there were prominent scientists who were theists, just like there were prominent scientists who were atheists. But the point is, the theists had no good evidence for their views. It was probably just how they were raised to think about the world.
The LORD: No evidence? Steven, your blindness is tragic. I have bent over backwards to show all of my children that they have a Father who loves them.
Landsburg: (so stunned that he forgets he is talking to an omnipotent being) What the heck are you talking about? I admit I was wrong–since I’m here talking to you–but c’mon, you were hiding all along. There was no rational reason to believe in you.
The LORD: Steven, for you, the first clue should have been the elegance, complexity, and sheer unpredictability of mathematics. There’s no reason for mathematics to be the way it is, except that I designed the structure of reality to be such, and endowed you with the logical faculties necessary to grasp some of its properties. Some of your brothers recognized My fingerprints.
Landsburg: (annoyed) With all due respect, surely you can’t expect that to be an independent argument. Right, if someone already believed, then it would make sense for him to attribute the beauty of mathematics to your handiwork. But invoking “God did it” doesn’t really add much explanatory power, for someone who comes to the table as an atheist.
The LORD: All right, let’s move on. I specifically designed the physical universe, and the laws that govern it, to give evidence of My existence. Many of your great scientists–even skeptics–have conceded that the charge on an electron and other parameters of the universe appear to have been deliberately calibrated to support human life.
Landsburg: Sure, I’m familiar with that line of reasoning, and the standard explanation is that there are an infinite number of possible universes, the vast majority of which don’t support life. Since we are alive and able to investigate this particular universe, we shouldn’t be surprised to see that it’s capable of supporting life.
The LORD: It’s interesting that the people who demand “empirical evidence” for My existence, themselves adopt a worldview that at step one posits an infinite number of entire universes, all of which by definition are incapable of ever being subject to empirical investigation.
Landsburg: What’s your point?
The LORD: Let’s move on, Steven. Why did you ignore all of the prophets I sent? Indeed I became human Myself, walked the earth for three decades, teaching and performing miracles, and telling everyone just Who I AM and about the nature of My Kingdom. Indeed, there was a book written about these events, and it sold quite nicely. Throughout the centuries, countless people of great creativity, courage, and passion performed great feats in My name. They all reported being in personal relationship with Me. Billions of people through history have reported feeling an emptiness that only I can fill. Every culture in human history has grappled with Me in its own way. None of this constituted evidence for you that I AM?
Landsburg: Look, you’re not telling me anything I don’t already know. Of course I had heard about Bible stories, and I watched Charlton Heston just like everybody else. But I had no reason to actually believe those reports of miracles. They contradicted what I took to be the findings of modern science. There are all sorts of myths floating around. These anecdotal accounts of personal revelation or other “miraculous” events are just hearsay.
The LORD: What if there were a miraculous event that was simultaneously experienced by more than 10,000 people, with reporters present? You would believe then?
Landsburg: No, because that wasn’t a reproducible event. There are other, more reasonable explanations for what those people claim to have experienced. If we had controlled experiments, then we could isolate whether they really were seeing divine apparitions or if instead they were frying their eyeballs by staring at the sun.
The LORD: Let me make sure I understand your position. You would only be willing to entertain even the possibility that a miracle had occurred, if you could reproduce it in a controlled setting, to understand the laws governing its occurrence.
Landsburg: That’s not quite my position, but sure that’s a good first approximation.
The LORD: Generally speaking, people conceive of “miracles” as being deviations from the normal progress of natural laws. So your stance rules out miracles a priori. By definition, your approach would never let you detect any evidence of divine intervention.
Landsburg: You’re a very skilled debater, I’ll grant you that, but no, I don’t think that’s right. I insist on reproducibility not because I want the theist to fail, but simply because that’s the only way to be sure we’re not fooling ourselves with confirmation bias or other prejudices. But if you really wanted us to have objective evidence of your existence, you should have allowed for some commonly recurring phenomenon, that was qualitatively beyond the ability of the natural sciences to explain. Not ancient stories of a guy talking to a burning bush, but something that scientists the world over would have access to today to subject it to their own approaches. And if they walked away saying, “There is no way we can explain that, by reference to mechanical laws,” well then, that would be pretty good evidence that you existed.
The LORD: Steven, did anybody ever tell you where babies come from?
Landsburg: Is that a joke?
The LORD: Expectant parents often watch instructional videos called some variant of, “The Miracle of Birth.” That title is quite appropriate. Every day, in cities across the world, new people are created. Somehow, existing sentient beings are able to ingest material from the outside world, and transform it into an assembly of molecules that apparently houses a new, intelligent being with a personality, hopes, desires, the capacity for love and hate…some would say, they created a vehicle into which a soul would be deposited. Now yes, your scientists have made inroads on the various physical processes involved, but would you say they are close to really understanding exactly where a new human being comes from?
Landsburg: More or less.
The LORD: Less.
Landsburg: Well, again, I realize it’s churlish of me to argue with you, since I can see you with my own eyes and know that you exist, but you can hardly expect us to have thought something was “miraculous” when it happens thousands of times before breakfast all across the world.
The LORD: Steven, Steven, Steven, don’t you see what you’re doing? Every thing you demand of Me, I grant. If something miraculous occurs very rarely, you say that is insufficient evidence. If something miraculous occurs every day, you say that it is too commonplace. What more can I do?
Landsburg: Hey, you’re God! If you really wanted me to know you existed, you could have performed a miracle directly for me–as well as for Christopher Hitchens. Why should we have to rely on indirect evidence and inference drawing?
The LORD: Steven, please read what you wrote on a blog post at that sophomoric site Free Advice.
Landsburg: (quoting himself)
When I was 10 years old, I had a paper route. One Saturday night, I was delivering the Sunday paper (we delivered the Sunday paper on Saturdays) and I had three more houses left to visit — but only one more paper in my wagon. Nothing like this had ever happened before and I was irrationally petrified about the consequences — I thought I would be in some kind of enormous trouble over this and my life would never be the same. So I turned my back to the wagon and prayed that when I turned back around, there would be three papers in that wagon. (I was, I think, something of an agnostic at that time, attributing maybe a 50% probability to the existence of God.) I waited a long time to turn back around, to give God a chance to do his work. When I turned around, there were three papers in that wagon, though I had double, triple and quadruple checked the wagon in my early desperation, and there had definitely been only one paper. And EVEN THEN, my first reaction (well, my second reaction, following enormous relief) was:
“Wow. It seems almost impossible that those two extra papers were there all along and I failed to see them. But almost impossible as it might be, it’s still more plausible than that God did this.” I stand by that reaction.
The LORD: My dear Steven, there are many things you may want to say to me now. But asking why I hid Myself from you cannot be one of them.
1) How are we to resolve a situation in which two people with an equally compelling set of experiences come to mutually exclusive conclusions?
2) Do you think only Christians experience objects mysteriously tipping over and “relocating”?
3) Is it possible for people who hold views incompatible with Christianity to have similar experiences and come to radically different conclusions from the one you have?
The above questions were from last week, and here’s another for your consideration:
How do you know you’re not being tricked by…
a) your brain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinations_in_the_sane)
b) someone wielding advanced technology (e.g. a mind control device, the matrix, etc.)
c) a supernatural being pretending to be something it’s not (e.g. a ghost, the devil, etc.)
Anonymouse,
Implicit to Bob’s dialog is that Landsburg has willfully chosen to rationalize away all evidence of God. He will invent multiverses, project insanity on witnesses, and invent other unseen forces, all to maintain his a priori assumption of a solely material universe.
So, yes, two people can look at the same evidence and come to two different conclusions by choice. This is why you are morally culpable for what you believe. You are not a victim of insufficient evidence.
You can be morally responsible for differences in rational opinion?
It isn’t like Landsburg is doing something immoral. At worst, he is doing something unintellectual. Is that so punishable?
Yes, because you chose to believe it. Your beliefs drive your actions. If I deeply wanted to kill all East Timorans, but I can’t afford the flight and don’t know how to smuggle a nuke in my carry-on, it doesn’t mean I’m a still good person.
The immoral thing about your example is… the morals. Wanting to kill a bunch of people isn’t an intellectual mistake. So red herring.
With Landsburg, he isn’t actually doing anything wrong. He’s just not believing a certain set of facts about the universe.
Is being factually WRONG unethical?
Was Mao ethically liable because he just happened to get it wrong with the Great Leap Forward? I don’t think there’s any evidence that he wanted those people to die, but they did because he chose to believe falsehoods.
If Mao knew his policies would cause people to suffer and die, then he’s unethical.
If Mao just made an honest intellectual error, then no, he isn’t.
It’s like what if I accidentally created a singularity by asking a supercomputer to divide by zero. It would destroy everyone but I wouldn’t be a “bad person”.
TLDR – intellectual mistakes ~= moral mistakes.
Even if someone is considered unethical by accidentally killing people, does the ethical liability come from the false beliefs or from the deaths of those people? If the latter, it is really a disingenuous analogy, unless you can refer to people that died because Landsburg doesn’t believe in God.
It’s from the false beliefs. I knew a guy in college who was the only true totalitarian I have ever met. He believed that extraordinary violence was the solution to all of the world’s problems. Drugs? Torture them to death. Terrorists? Torture them to death. Theft? Death. Any crime? Death. He openly admired Stalin (not for the communism, but his willingness to enforce his will at any cost). This guy honestly thought that the world would be a much better place after a little while. Should he get a free pass because he was wrong and no one will ever let him be in charge?
You’re equivocating between “moral exoneration” and “free pass”.
No. He should totally be raged intellectually for believing such FACTUALLY wrong things.
He should also receive moral condemnation to the extent that you think his MEANS are bad.
He should receive ZERO moral condemnation for the ACTUAL consequences of his beliefs, because he isn’t actually trying to make the world a lousy place.
And that’s really cool that you just jockey from one example to another. I mean, I answered the Mao example, and now you hit me with something that is basically the same thing and pretend like you’re moving the conversation forward.
Good job!
Ok Joe, sorry for frustrating you. I was trying to site an example that included the Mao example, but added the nuance that he didn’t actually cause any observable harm unlike Mao.
Maybe this is too long of a discussion for a blog back-and-forth. My position is that your beliefs drive your behavior, so a perfect justice would require a punishment for willful disbelief of the facts.
Again, needless ambiguity. Yes, beliefs drive your action. But which beliefs? It’s a combination of what you believe intellectually and what you believe morally.
If you’re just mechanistically wrong about something, and it causes harm, you are not morally wrong. In fact, you may have been trying to do the right thing, and that is never in itself blameworthy.
Yes, as long as he doesn’t go around torturing drug dealers to death, he should get a free pass. Having false beliefs in itself harms no one, so I don’t really see the moral problem.
Yes being factually wrong is unethical if you choose to evaluate all the facts with an biased opinion. If your “mistake” isn’t really a mistake but rather a result of a decision of how to look at things then you aren’t factually wrong, on the contrary you chose to ignore blaring evidence due to your bias or whatever agenda you were trying to promote
“With Landsburg, he isn’t actually doing anything wrong.”
Sure he is. He is deliberately denying his maker.
“So, yes, two people can look at the same evidence and come to two different conclusions by choice.”
You’ve missed the point. What happens when someone has a mystical vision telling them that Jesus never existed? Or is that impossible?
You’re assuming that allowing for “supernatural” evidence translates into a belief that “supernatural” evidence always supercedes reason. Personally, I would analyze any event (intuition, impulse, feeling, vision, etc…) with the rest of the available data. I think there’s a strong historical case that Jesus existed as a person, so I would probably put little weight on the vision.
Christianity does go a little bit further than just claim the existance of God by adding in Satan, who is explicitly mentioned as an anti-God deceiver.
“You’re assuming that allowing for ‘supernatural’ evidence translates into a belief that ‘supernatural’ evidence always supercedes reason.”
Calling Bob’s evidence “supernatural” is begging the question. It’s evidence of something, but not necessarily the supernatural.
And Bob’s post from last week was not entitled “Allowing for Supernatural Evidence”. It was entitled “Why I Know There Is a God”, so I think his claim is much stronger than you have portrayed it.
“I think there’s a strong historical case that Jesus existed as a person…”
As far as I’m aware, almost the entire case for the historicity of Jesus rests on Christian scripture (and a few lines from Josephus), and scholars do not even consider those writings to be contemporary accounts, so in what sense exactly is that a strong case?
That is a long discussion. According to Tacitus (a secular Roman account) Christianity had risen to a level of persecution by Nero by 64 AD. This implies a population worth noticing. Where did they come from? Tacitus says they originally came from Jerusalem. This aligns with Biblical accounts and Catholic tradition that Peter was amongst those in Rome. It aligns with Paul’s letter to the Romans. At a reasonable level of conversion and geographic dispersion (Rome, England, Ethiopia, India), something happened in Jerusalem around 30-35 AD. In my mind, there’s no logical conclusion, but to say that someone named Jesus started a philosophical revolution in Jerusalem around that time.
“In my mind, there’s no logical conclusion, but to say that someone named Jesus started a philosophical revolution in Jerusalem around that time.”
I think there is a more logical conclusion, but that is also a long discussion and will unfortunately have to wait for another day.
Belief: the blinder the better
Any idea what your unsubscribe stats are after a typical Sunday post 😉
“The LORD: Do the ranks of the rational, scientific people not include Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Faraday, Mendel, Newton, and Einstein? They didn’t share the same view of me, but they all knew I existed.”
Does The LORD differentiate between knowledge and belief?
“The LORD: No evidence? Steven, your blindness is tragic. I have bent over backwards to show all of my children that they have a Father who loves them.”
If The LORD had really bent over backwards, evangelism would be superfluous.
“The LORD: Steven, for you, the first clue should have been the elegance, complexity, and sheer unpredictability of mathematics. There’s no reason for mathematics to be the way it is, except that I designed the structure of reality to be such, and endowed you with the logical faculties necessary to grasp some of its properties.”
What’s the argument for that, again? Elegance + complexity + unpredictability = The LORD?
“The LORD: All right, let’s move on. I specifically designed the physical universe, and the laws that govern it, to give evidence of My existence. Many of your great scientists–even skeptics–have conceded that the charge on an electron and other parameters of the universe appear to have been deliberately calibrated to support human life.”
I think The LORD misspoke there. Didn’t it mean to just say “life”, as opposed to “human life”? In any case, if you look throughout the universe, you will find phenomena that only arise under very precise conditions. Are we to take it that everything that arises under very precise conditions is the result of human-like agency?
“The LORD: Let’s move on, Steven. Why did you ignore all of the prophets I sent?”
What percentage of history’s profits have been Christian (or even Judeo-Christian)? Hopefully, for The LORD’s sake, the answer is 100.
“Indeed I became human Myself, walked the earth for three decades, teaching and performing miracles, and telling everyone just Who I AM and about the nature of My Kingdom.”
Me thinks The LORD doth tell a lie.
“Indeed, there was a book written about these events, and it sold quite nicely.”
Ah yes… the argument by sales volume. But wasn’t it Pope Common Sense VIII who said, “Don’t believe everything you read in books”?
“Throughout the centuries, countless people of great creativity, courage, and passion performed great feats in My name.”
Right. Let’s not list all those feats, though. Things could get a little embarrassing for The LORD.
“Billions of people through history have reported feeling an emptiness that only I can fill.”
Many people feel an emptiness that only fiction can fill, but that doesn’t make it true. And millions of people report an emptiness that only Doritos can fill, but they’re not about to bow down and worship The FRITO-LAY.
“Every culture in human history has grappled with Me in its own way.”
Let’s not get too full of ourselves now. Many of those cultures have never even heard of you.
“The LORD: What if there were a miraculous event that was simultaneously experienced by more than 10,000 people, with reporters present? You would believe then?”
What is The LORD getting at here? That it is willing to reveal itself to 10,000 people, but not to one million or six billion? Why not?
If The LORD does exist, then it obviously wants there to be confusion over its existence. Otherwise it would do us all a favor and come out of the cosmic closet.
“The LORD: Expectant parents often watch instructional videos called some variant of, “The Miracle of Birth.” That title is quite appropriate.”
Does The LORD understand the difference between “a miracle” in the sense of something amazing and as yet not fully explained by scientists, and “a miracle” in the sense of something supernatural?
“The LORD: Steven, Steven, Steven, don’t you see what you’re doing? Every thing you demand of Me, I grant. If something miraculous occurs very rarely, you say that is insufficient evidence. If something miraculous occurs every day, you say that it is too commonplace. What more can I do?”
The LORD is using the term “miraculous” in two different senses in the same argument. The LORD has committed a logical fallacy.
Man I’m so glad that I didn’t live in the 12th century, because then christians would be all like “WELL HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN RAINBOWZ” and I wouldn’t have an answer. But it’s just light refracting, and we understand the physics now and see that rainbows are necessary and predictable.
It just sucks that I don’t live a couple hundred years in the future when we’ve figured out the *cough* miracle of birth, or otherwise record virtually all physical events so that we can determine whether misplacing your papers or solar events are physical flukes or divine intervention.
I also wish god were cool enough to to structure his miracles and appearances instead of them just occurring randomly in some small way or in some backwater part of the world were nobody expects it. Because then, it looks a lot more like random flukes than god’s hand.
Also, children who die at age 5 from horrible preventable diseases.
I love it how just because you don’t understand the logic that god uses on a day by day basis you choose not to believe in him. NO ONE is saying that nature is not explainable by science. Just because you can explain something does not mean that it occurred without god. maybe just maybe god set up the laws of nature so it can run with a set of rules. As you study more and more about nature you should realize that things are very very complicated like childbirth. Yes you can explain how childbirth occurs knowing the rules of nature but how did those rules come about. Who set up that when a sperm meets an egg it will fertilize it and implant itself into the lining of the endometrium? It could be by chance but that chance is so minutely small that maybe you should entertain the thought that maybe there is a god that directed it that way.
“Just because you can explain something does not mean that it occurred without god.”
But it means you don’t have to invoke god to explain something.
“maybe just maybe god set up the laws of nature so it can run with a set of rules.”
Maybe there is no god and you’re wrong.
“As you study more and more about nature you should realize that things are very very complicated like childbirth.”
Something is complicated to the human mind? The human mind that evolved to hunt wild animals and scrounge for berries? That mind finds the metaphysical substructure of the universe complicated?
Shocking.
“Yes you can explain how childbirth occurs knowing the rules of nature but how did those rules come about. ”
Rules don’t have to have a cause. They’re not physical objects.
“Who set up that when a sperm meets an egg it will fertilize it and implant itself into the lining of the endometrium?”
U mad bro?
“It could be by chance but that chance is so minutely small that maybe you should entertain the thought that maybe there is a god that directed it that way.”
Actually, it doesn’t matter how infinitesimally small the chance of life is. Because we’re not arguing over absolute probability, but conditional probability. And the conditional probability that life exists by a 0.00000000001% given that I am observing it is 100%. Because I am alive.
Lololololol u mad.
“U mad bro?”
and
“Lololololol u mad.”
and
“Maybe you could capitalize your sentences. Then it wouldn’t look like you have a brain disease.”
>Implying I should take my opponent seriously
>Opponent is clearly mad and incoherent
>Tired of treating the lowest common denominator with respect
thx
how is not capitalizing letter showing my anger and incoherence? it just shows that im a bit lazy when it comes to things that have no impact on my argument.
no where in my argument was i arguing why i believe on god. yes you are right that maybe there is no god and i have no right using him to explain certain phenomena that occur. but maybe there is a god. i am not trying to convince you here that a god exists and neither is bob. he is just showing the ridiculousness of people who consistently create excuses to deny god. when you have your mind made up already you can always think of a way to explain things in a different manner.
and of course rules have to have come from somewhere just like physical objects came from somewhere. i dont understand why you assume that they dont have to be created. maybe you can explain how gravity works but why does gravity exist a whole new question.
So lazy you can’t even press the shift key? Maybe you’re also so lazy you can’t get your worldview right.
“no where in my argument was i arguing why i believe on god.”
Grammar! It is inductive evidence that you are deranged if you can’t write properly.
“and of course rules have to have come from somewhere just like physical objects came from somewhere”
Why?
“i dont understand why you assume that they dont have to be created.”
I don’t believe anything has to be “created”. It’s a meaningless term. Have you ever seen anything created? No? You’ve only seen matter and energy change forms. Ex Nihilo creation is ENTIRELY unempirical, and violates all sorts of thermodynamic laws, and continuity, and…
The question of “where everything came from” is also circular. It’s like asking “which space did space come from?”. It presupposes that I think everything existed “somewhere else” and got moved here somehow. This much is false.
Maybe time is infinitely linear in both directions. Maybe time is fractal. Maybe time is relative. Maybe causality only makes sense as a concept because we’ve evolved in an extremely consistent environment where weird things DON’T happen, and then when they actually DO happen (like elsewhere in the cosmos), our hunter-gatherer brains find it strange.
For some reason.
Sheer unpredictability of mathematics? For god’s sake, give us a break.
Mathematics are the way they are because that is the way we conceived them.
Nothing to do with nature, and even less with miracle performing gods.
>> Human mind can’t predict all mathematical dynamics
>> ??
>> There must be a god
Win
I disagree, once a mathematical theorem is proven, it CANNOT be proven to come out as something different anymore. That’s the whole point of mathematics — self consistency.
Of course there are plenty of undiscovered theorems (gaps in our knowledge if you like) but in terms of rediscovering what we already know about mathematics, it should not matter who does the work, they must get the same answer.
I agree. So what were you disagreeing with?
Mathematics are the way they are because that is the way we conceived them. Nothing to do with nature, and even less with miracle performing gods.
If it has nothing to do with nature, why is it so successful a tool for us dealing with nature? Coincidence?
We conceive of successful mathematical theorems in our minds, because our minds are a part of nature. Mathematical theorems are grounded in nature.
It is a successful tool to deal with nature because that is how we conceived mathematics. A large part of mathematics, if not most of it, is not useful at all to deal with nature, which doesn t mean it is useless, e.g. the mathematics that deals with itself.
Mathematics is not grounded on nature. It is a self contained abstraction.
It is a successful tool to deal with nature because that is how we conceived mathematics.
That doesn’t answer the question.
Why is it that how we have conceived mathematics is so successful for us to deal with nature, rather than being unsuccessful?
A large part of mathematics, if not most of it, is not useful at all to deal with nature, which doesn t mean it is useless, e.g. the mathematics that deals with itself.
Which part is not useful?
Mathematics is not grounded on nature. It is a self contained abstraction.
I will ask you again since you didn’t answer it before:
Why or how can a “self-contained abstraction” be so successful in dealing with nature, if it’s not grounded in nature?
We have conceived mathematics to be a successful tool in dealing with nature.
But mathematics is much more than a tool to deal with nature, it is a self-contained abstraction grounded on nothing else than arbitrary axioms.
Much of it is not useful at all, like the Banach-Tarski paradox mentioned by Murphy or Fermat´s last theorem. And I´d dare to say that most new findings in contemporary mathematics are totally removed from anything that could be useful in dealing with nature one way or the other.
We have conceived mathematics to be a successful tool in dealing with nature.
It’s more than that. It ACTUALLY IS successful. How do you explain that?
Much of it is not useful at all, like the Banach-Tarski paradox mentioned by Murphy or Fermat´s last theorem. And I´d dare to say that most new findings in contemporary mathematics are totally removed from anything that could be useful in dealing with nature one way or the other.
I think the concept of infinity is a movement away from useful mathematics, and brings things closer to theology.
Even if the Fine-Tuning Argument is true, at best it established a Deist God, not one that takes an active role with human affairs, such as by answering prayers. In any case, it’s arguing backward. If conditions were to be different such that life could not exist, any beings able to observe this would not be around to feel it was thus perfectly “designed” for them. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Anthropic_principle As Douglas Adams summarizes it:
“… imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”
In the Wikipedia link for the “Miracle of the Sun” very plausible naturalistic explanations for a mass witness of the sun “dancing” are given. The miracle would have to be more compelling by far. If God really wished to reveal Itself, easier methods abound. One can disbelieve in gravity at their leisure, but the result of jumping off a cliff is always the same. If it were literally “impossible” to break the “moral law” of God, that would be very compelling evidence. How would that violate free will any more than gravity does, being an undeniable natural fact?
In the Wikipedia link for the “Miracle of the Sun” very plausible naturalistic explanations for a mass witness of the sun “dancing” are given.
What are the “very plausible naturalistic explanations” given for the Miracle?
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun#Critical_evaluation_of_the_event
The specific one is that staring at the sun for a long period of time is likely to make it appear as “dancing” from the after-images of doing so.
Have you ever stared at the sun and then seen an after-image. Did it seem like the sun was actually dancing around in the sky?
I can’t say I’ve ever stared at the Sun.
Try it. You might end up less blind.
Funny. I just don’t see what you do.
If God really wished to reveal Itself, easier methods abound.
He could, for example, tell us which of god’s twitter accounts is his.
Michael, does it matter in your analogy (or Douglas Adams’ analogy) that puddles actually can’t think?
No, it doesn’t matter. It’s just used to illustrate the observer bias. I’d have to say, even if the universe were proven to be designed unequivocally, that does no more than to prove, at best, deism, or more likely pandeism, pantheism, panentheism, etc. Perhaps advanced intelligent life forms could have created it as well, such evidence might not indicate for us either way. It is a long way from there to proving intercessory prayer, miracles or any sort of afterlife, let along the specifically religious deities.
Entertaining, enjoyable, and thought-provoking, Doc. Thanks!
The LORD: It’s interesting that the people who demand “empirical evidence” for My existence, themselves adopt a worldview that at step one posits an infinite number of entire universes, all of which by definition are incapable of ever being subject to empirical investigation.
LANDSBURG: With infinite respect, you are mistaken. Yes, those other universe are not capable of supporting life, but that is not the same as saying we can’t have empirical evidence of them. Pluto is incapable of developing or supporting life, and yet we can empirically investigate it. Even if the fundamental laws of another universe are so different, we can still empirically learn about it. Have you heard of the The Gods Themselves?
The LORD: Expectant parents often watch instructional videos called some variant of, “The Miracle of Birth.” That title is quite appropriate. Every day, in cities across the world, new people are created. Somehow, existing sentient beings are able to ingest material from the outside world, and transform it into an assembly of molecules that apparently houses a new, intelligent being with a personality, hopes, desires, the capacity for love and hate…some would say, they created a vehicle into which a soul would be deposited. Now yes, your scientists have made inroads on the various physical processes involved, but would you say they are close to really understanding exactly where a new human being comes from?
Landsburg: More or less.
The LORD: Less.
LANDSBURG: More and more each year. 400 years ago you could have asked the same question about where disease comes from, and I would not have known, but now we do. We are learning more and more about life. Why, in the year of you 2010, two biologist “made a bacterium that has an artificial genome—creating a living creature with no ancestor” (http://www.economist.com/node/16163154).
With infinite respect, you are mistaken. Yes, those other universe are not capable of supporting life, but that is not the same as saying we can’t have empirical evidence of them.
The many worlds hypothesis explicitly rules out us having any empirical evidence whether those other worlds exist.
Multiverse theories are more cunning that that. In fact, they are as cunning as a fox who’s just been appointed Professor of Cunning at Oxford University.
In the formulations of it that I am familiar with, there is no restriction on our ability to observer evidence of other universes. I pointed out the fictional, and well written, example in the Gods Themselves
It is an eternal battle, believers vs. non-believers. It is amazing how one’s worldview limits one’s ability to ‘see.’
I think the evidence is overwhelming that 9/11 was an ‘inside job.’ Same thing with JFK, that he was not murdered by Oswald but by CIA/military conspirators. Same thing with Pearl Harbor, that FDR and Marshall purposely stood by and withheld information of the attack that morning from Kimmel and Short. There is testimonial, documentary, photographic, and logical evidence behind all three.
Yet, many disbelieve.
Heck, if we cannot even achieve closure on these ‘easy’ ones — 9/11, JFK, Pearl Harbor, Alger Hiss, international bankers funding both sides in WWI and WWII, chemtrails, etc. — there is no way we can achieve closure on God.
But, it makes for interesting, though frustrating, discourse during the interim.
“There’s no reason for mathematics to be the way it is, except that I designed the structure of reality to be such, and endowed you with the logical faculties necessary to grasp some of its properties.”
What’s your reason for that position?
To sum up: the Lord intervenes with rocking chairs, bloggers and paper routes while innocent people suffer and die, lots of cool miracles in ancient times and the ultimate book was written then, complex stuff = God, and the Christians are right but somehow other religions are also right (or are they wrong?)
Also, sometimes the sun dances, but only people in Fatima Portugal notice.
Maybe god is a troll.
Anonymouse wrote:
Also, sometimes the sun dances, but only people in Fatima Portugal notice.
So if something extraordinary happened, where everybody around the world noticed, then you’d admit it was a miracle?
No, then you’d say, “This is clearly a natural phenomenon–everybody can see it, after all. We can’t explain it yet, but we will, just like we couldn’t explain rainbows in the 12th century.”
Joshua (below) is quite right, you guys are confirming what I’m saying in this post. It doesn’t mean I’m right about God existing, but it means you are ridiculing bits of evidence that would in fact be quite obviously “good evidence” if God happens to exist. The only reason it strikes you as ludicrous, is that you come to the debate absolutely certain that God doesn’t exist.
Maybe we come to the debate not defaulting to “god did it”. If there’s something we can’t explain, it might be a miracle, or it might just be science-as-usual. We require proof one way or the other.
If there’s something we can’t explain, it might be a miracle, or it might just be science-as-usual. We require proof one way or the other.
What would the “proof” of a miracle look like to you? And anyway, isn’t science not supposed to be about proof, but evidence?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_proof
Yes: “evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis.” Thus, proof.
A miracle would violate some fundamental law like continuity. Like I agree with your experiences of things suddenly appearing counts as a miracle; the dispute is simply over whether something discontinuous in fact happened. We find it more likely that you were mistaken.
And it’s not all about evidence. I’m open to analytical proofs. Unless you think mathematics is not part of science…?
We dont need absolute proof to live our lives under the assumption that god exists. we merely need to believe it to the point that we are willing to change the way we live based on that belief. For example if i were to tell you that bill gates said he would give you a billion dollars if you wear a pink tie every day for the next 5 years, you probably wouldnt do it because you wouldnt believe me. But if 10,000 people called you up at separate times and told you that they all witnessed bill gates saying he would give you a billion dollars if you wear a tie every day for the next 5 years, you would very possibly go out and buy a lot of pink ties. and if 10,000 werent enough then maybe a million people. the point is that you dont need absolute proof to live your life a certain way, you just need to believe to a certain point based on some sort of logic or experience.
“we merely need to believe it to the point that we are willing to change the way we live based on that belief. ”
Maybe you could capitalize your sentences. Then it wouldn’t look like you have a brain disease.
“But if 10,000 people called you up at separate times and told you that they all witnessed bill gates saying he would give you a billion dollars if you wear a tie every day for the next 5 years”
I would actually prefer it if Gates called me himself.
“the point is that you dont need absolute proof to live your life a certain way”
Right, except we document normal physics 99.999999% of the time, so the times when it appears to be violated are more likely just business as usual and our instruments are bad.
It is also really suspicious that supernatural events occur randomly to random people in random ways. It’s almost what you would expect if there were no rhyme to the universe whatsoever.
“Maybe you could capitalize your sentences. Then it wouldn’t look like you have a brain disease”
great arguement!!! you win on that one!
“I would actually prefer it if Gates called me himself”
yes you would but what if he didn’t, you still very possibly would change the way you live. just because god doesnt do things that are convenient for you doesnt mean he doesnt exist.
“Right, except we document normal physics 99.999999% of the time, so the times when it appears to be violated are more likely just business as usual and our instruments are bad.”
normal physics is not a contradiction to god so whats your point?? and just because things appear random who says it is?? your brain?? maybe your brain nor mine doesnt have the capacity to comprehend the complexity of the situation and it just appears random
“great arguement!!! you win on that one!”
It’s not an argument. It’s a statement. It is suspicious that you take yourself so seriously if you can’t even get your grammar right. But here, I’ll make it into an argument. If you can’t see or fix your own mistakes when using the English language, what makes you think you can see the mistakes you make elsewhere?
“yes you would but what if he didn’t, you still very possibly would change the way you live. just because god doesnt do things that are convenient for you doesnt mean he doesnt exist.”
I’m saying that if he did contact me himself, it would be ironclad proof. No need to screw around with circuitous examples. So what’s your point? That there are circumstances that could result in me believing in god? Cool story bro.
“normal physics is not a contradiction to god so whats your point??”
That we can probably round 99.99999% up to 100% and say that “miracles” are just our failure to fit events to a preconceived model.
“and just because things appear random who says it is?? your brain??”
Yeah. Maybe it’s like what if some complicated function of every other letter in your last name comes out to be prime, and if it is, then god contacts you.
Or maybe there’s no rhyme or reason to these miracles. Maybe your “god” lets african children starve and die horrible deaths, whereas the same god has the time to contact Bob Murphy and tell him how to beat Roderick Long in a debate (which was taken offline, for some strange reason… maybe it was the devil)
“maybe your brain nor mine doesnt have the capacity to comprehend the complexity of the situation and it just appears random”
Maybe it appears like there is a god but there really isn’t. Like maybe your brain isn’t complex enough to step back from events and say “You know, maybe I made an error”.
Maybe you’re completely insane for anthropomorphizing metaphysics and thinking that the cosmos cares whether you eat pork.
“U mad bro?”
and
“Lololololol u mad.”
and
“If you can’t see or fix your own mistakes when using the English language, what makes you think you can see the mistakes you make elsewhere?”
That last one is actually a legitimate argument , by the way. But that’s cool that you try to get my banned for calling a spade a spade. Judah is so incompetent he doesn’t deserve a response. Maybe you should step back and think about which of us is *really* being counterproductive.
Pschaw. You and all the other soccer moms who figured out how to use the internet last summer.
You are missing my point in posting your comments. I’ll give you a hint. It has to do with irony.
Oh. Sheesh. “U” vs “You”.
But the spelling here is memetic. Google “u mad bro” if you aren’t familiar.
“So if something extraordinary happened, where everybody around the world noticed, then you’d admit it was a miracle?”
The point of my comment was: If the sun was actually “dancing”, then everyone on the half of the globe facing the sun would have been able to see it.
Whatever it was the people in Fatima, Portugal saw, it was NOT the sun dancing, and we have the rest of the hemisphere to thank for bearing witness to that fact.
“No, then you’d say, ‘This is clearly a natural phenomenon–everybody can see it, after all. We can’t explain it yet, but we will, just like we couldn’t explain rainbows in the 12th century.'”
Exactly. History does not reflect favorably upon the “I don’t get it, so god did it!” hypothesis. To the contrary. Patience and devotion to reason have a proven track record, whilst faithful “knowers” continue to cede intellectual ground.
“…you are ridiculing bits of evidence that would in fact be quite obviously ‘good evidence’ if God happens to exist.”
What a fantastic fallacy. You’ve put the conclusion before the horse. A deft reversal of logic. But, what you’ve failed to do is demonstrate why people seeing crazy things in Portugal is any evidence whatsoever of the supernatural, let alone a supernatural intelligence.
The sum of all unexplained phenomena at any given point in time does not automatically equal GOD. The unexplained have this pesky habit of becoming explained (to the chagrin of religionists).
Have patience, young Skywalker. These mysteries will be revealed to thee in good time.
I imagine Dr. Murphy banging his head against a table when he reads these kind of comments. He keeps pointing out that there is no evidence that could be presented that God exists that would satisfy people like you. You confirm his suspicion with your comments but then follow up by saying he hasn’t presented any evidence that proves God exists. How is he to prove God exists to someone who acknowledges that he believes it is impossible for God to exist? You can’t even see that you are the exact type of person this post was addressing.
“I imagine Dr. Murphy banging his head against a table when he reads these kind of comments”
Well, if he spent less time banging his head and more time responding to the valid points being made and answering the relevant questions being asked, we might actually get somewhere.
“He keeps pointing out that there is no evidence that could be presented that God exists that would satisfy people like you.”
Sure there is.
“How is he to prove God exists to someone who acknowledges that he believes it is impossible for God to exist?”
Who ever said that? You may imagine yourself to be engaged in a real debate, but you haven’t responded to a single thing I’ve written.
Try putting something I’ve actually said in quotes and then explain why it is not true.
Bob, referring to Anonymouse’s point that people outside Fatima didn’t report the sun dancing, said:
“So if something extraordinary happened, where everybody around the world noticed, then you’d admit it was a miracle? No, then you’d say, ‘This is clearly a natural phenomenon–everybody can see it, after all. We can’t explain it yet, but we will, just like we couldn’t explain rainbows in the 12th century.’”
To this Anonymouse said:
Exactly. History does not reflect favorably upon the “I don’t get it, so god did it!” hypothesis.
I think we can stop here, Anonymouse. You have just agreed that no matter what happens, you will not consider it a miracle. If just a few people report seeing it, you doubt their report. And if the whole hemisphere reported seeing it, you would search for a naturalistic explanation.
At this point I’m not even criticizing your world view. But don’t you see, that you have inoculated yourself against seeing any evidence that God exists? So you shouldn’t be aghast at others who don’t interpret the evidence the way you do. They aren’t inventing evidence where there is none, they have just decided not to exclude its very possibility at the outset, as you’ve done.
Bob: “They aren’t inventing evidence where there is none, they have just decided not to exclude its very possibility at the outset, as you’ve done.”
Yeah, but conservation of expected evidence works both ways. To me, the interesting question isn’t “what evidence would you expect to see if God exists” but “what counterevidence would you expect to observe.” For any prior belief, a strong believe for which we expect to observe plenty of evidence must be balanced by the “opposite” belief for which we have a weak probability of observing really strong evidence. (Shown in the link at the end)
I find that irrational theists and atheists alike have trouble with the second question. Everyone has prior ideas about the universe, but few people actually change their minds when presented with evidence that SHOULD conflict with prior beliefs.
The problem with the theist argument is, in order for probability theory to find logical support for God, the evidence needs to be really strong. As in, really strong in such a way that the evidence should completely rule alternative hypotheses (such as mass hysteria).
I’m nonplussed as why you would frame this as a negative. At some point, the theist position does break down into a class of ideas that most brand as “insane” due to lack of evidence (Scientology anyone) yet organized religion have the appeal to tradition to sustain them, so that their extraordinary claims no longer require extraordinary evidence.
I grew up really wanting to believe in God, and looked for His miracles everywhere, but I witnessed nothing where the power of the evidence ruled out alternative explanations.
So, Bob, I ask you: what evidence would you expect to observe for the nonexistence of God?
http://lesswrong.com/lw/ii/conservation_of_expected_evidence/
I think Bob’s basic point is this: There are people who claim to base their atheism on objective analysis of the evidence, but in reality they will rationalize away any evidence because they have already precluded the possibility of God’s existence. You can debate whether or not you think Landsburg’s atheism, or your own, is like this, but to simply add more rationalization to Bob’s evidences without addressing his assertion about ‘unfalsifiable’ rationalization is, I think, simply playing right into it.
Last point for now: In my view, the “eternal damnation of hell” is that you sit by yourself forever, while those of us who accepted His invitation get to bask in eternity in the presence of the Lord. In my view, it’s not that you are getting roasted, but rather that you are missing out an eternity of the best thing imaginable–paradise itself. So in contrast, how could you describe the status of the people who don’t get to join in the fun? Why, it’s the worst thing imaginable–it’s a living hell.
Now, you ask, “What do I have to do, in order to have God let me in?” Basically you have to say, “I admit there is a God, and He is bigger than me, and I gratefully accept His free gift of eternal bliss.” But if you don’t want to accept it, God gives you the freedom to reject, and you can sit in the corner forever while everybody else sings with the angels.
What if you are agnostic? Do you get in half time then?
😉
I’m still waiting for Murphy to adequately explain how he can believe the incredibly immoral and unjust conviction that violent baby murderers and rapists who repent before they die gain an infinite after-life of bliss, whereas peaceful atheists who do not repent before they die incur an infinite after-life of torment.
Could it be that he refuses to accept that peaceful atheists lived a life according to the way they wanted it and the way they knew was right, because he can’t handle the individual who lives independent from dogma, and to make himself feel better, he has to believe that the peaceful atheist is going to incur infinite torment in the after-life?
What kind of a person would use a theist concept as an excuse to call for infinite torment on peaceful people who just don’t accept theistic concepts as ontologically valid? Why would their theist concept reward those who break all ten commandments but then repent just before they die, whereas it will concept incur infinite torment on those who follow all of the “Earthly” ten commandments, who are peaceful, but who just don’t repent right before they die?
The theist may believe that he isn’t calling for this torment, he may believe that he’s just relaying God’s will, but in reality those ideas are in his mind, and they are his own ideas. I mean, if he substituted “flying spaghetti monster” in for “God”, then his morality will be more easily viewed as a human morality, and he would be called out for it by the majority of the world’s population. But because so many people believe in the existence of a different flying spaghetti monster like entity, his call for infinite torment and isolation on peaceful people is drowned out in a sea of democracy.
Murphy, which do you prefer:
A world full of violent rapists, baby murderers and torturers who all believe in God, or a world full of peaceful free traders and cooperators who all don’t believe in God? In which world would you rather raise your children?
Note that this question isn’t a false dichotomy, because I am not making any positive declaration of what exists in 2012 such that these are your actual choices today in 2012. It is a thought experiment, to see what your subjective ranking scale looks like in a possible world, like say one of the multiverses that you are taking for granted when trying to refute Landsberg.
Yo dawg, thats why i like the catholic notion of hell and purgatory. To be in heaven is to fully unite oneself with god. It is theoretically possible for mass murderers and child rapists to achieve this(and even more possible for atheists of course). But it requires an understanding of both god and yourself which entails completely coming to terms with what youve done, how unworthy you are of forgiveness, and that god alone could be so unimaginably great to forgive you. Going to hell would mean eternally refusing to come to terms with yourself or god.
Bob’s notion of hell is entirely consistent with the catholic notion. Pope John Paul II defined it as the “state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed”. It is very loosely analogous to locking yourself in solitary confinement for all eternity.
Dawg, that doesn’t change much. Instead of wishing infinite torment on atheists, it is wishing infinite isolation on atheists, and still wishing infinite bliss on murderers and child rapists who repent.
First of all not all religions believe that, and second of all even if they do then just because you dont agree with the way god runs the world how is that reason to deny his existence. you might not like god for doing that but that is no reason to deny his existence.
I can’t deny what can’t exist.
can you please explain to me why god CAN”T exist?
Alternatively, hell could be a place where non-believers go to argue whether God exists, and believers get to bask with God.
I’d prefer to just be annihilated. Is that so much for me to ask?
Why does your God have such an ego, and damns his creations for being skeptical? He is a horrific tyrant, but he loves us.
If this doesn’t prove Murphy is delusional then nothing will.
Sure, and so was Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Faraday, Mendel, Newton, and Einstein, right?
People who don’t want to engage in the actual arguments always try to find other not related spots with which they try to discredit people… Sadly though that’s quite effective but it’s also quite pathetic and shows their character.
Argument from authority much? Just because some famous people believed in it does not make it so (and I’d note Einstein stated he lacked belief in a personal God, but rather saw the universe itself as this-pantheism).
No sorry you are wrong.
Marc would not argue that all those people I mentioned (copied from Bob’s post) are delusional because of their religious believes, even less he would imply that everything else they said must be delusional as well… I am sure there are enough other examples too. I called Marc out on having double standards by using them intentionally to discredit Bob’s opinion in one area because of what they think in another. That is not an argument from authority.
Sorry. I meant of course „…Bob’s opinion in one area because of what HE THINKS in another.“
It’s funny how everyone gets to make up their own customized version of their religion without apparently caring whether or not it conflicts with the views of their co-religionists.
“Basically you have to say, ‘I admit there is a God, and He is bigger than me, and I gratefully accept His free gift of eternal bliss.’ But if you don’t want to accept it, God gives you the freedom to reject, and you can sit in the corner forever while everybody else sings with the angels.”
Any god that thinks that way is too silly to be taken seriously, too insecure to be feared, and too unjust to be respected.
“Any god that thinks that way is too silly to be taken seriously, too insecure to be feared, and too unjust to be respected.”
Why?
It is silly to demand belief and yet withhold evidence.
It is insecure to judge people not on their own merits – how they live their lives and treat others – but solely on what they think of you (if anything).
It is unjust to punish good people and reward evil people.
I love it how just because you dont understand the way god works you deny his existence. your view of unjust by no way is the only possibility that can exist. your argument is not one against his existence but rather against people who like him.
You mean if we simply assume the existence of God at the outset, and if we assume out the outset that non-physical entities can have conversations with God, and if we assume out the outset that Murphy has the intellectual wherewithal to speak ON BEHALF of God (hello!), that we can construct a story where disbelief in God leads to contradictions with our initial baseless assumptions?
GET OUT!
Here are what I can see are some declarations made in the conversation that are supposed to cast doubt on atheists, i.e. supposed to prove the existence of God:
The LORD: Do the ranks of the rational, scientific people not include Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Faraday, Mendel, Newton, and Einstein? They didn’t share the same view of me, but they all knew I existed.
Knew? Or believed? You’re just insinuating that belief equals knowledge. I could believe in the flying spaghetti monster, but that doesn’t mean I have knowledge of it.
The LORD: No evidence? Steven, your blindness is tragic. I have bent over backwards to show all of my children that they have a Father who loves them.
Claiming that which exists is evidence of God is just as ad hoc as claiming that that which exists is evidence of the FSM. There is zero evidence for God. There is evidence of you having the belief in God.
The LORD: Steven, for you, the first clue should have been the elegance, complexity, and sheer unpredictability of mathematics. There’s no reason for mathematics to be the way it is, except that I designed the structure of reality to be such, and endowed you with the logical faculties necessary to grasp some of its properties. Some of your brothers recognized My fingerprints.
If elegance, complexity, and unpredictability of a concept presupposes that concept to have been created by an intelligent designer/deity, then the same logic can be applied to your conception of the intelligent designer/deity itself. It would also have to have been created by an intelligent designer/deity if you are going to be consistent. If you say no, if you say the intelligent designer/deity creating an intelligent designer/deity series has a stopping point, and you claim to have knowledge of this ultimate cause, then I will just say that you are contradicting your claim that elegance, complexity, and unpredictability of a concept somehow implies that the concept must have been created by an intelligent designer/deity.
Oh, and notice how in the Banach-Tarski paradox, the concept of infinity is at its foundation? Remember when I said how infinity leads to so many problems in mathematics because infinity is so far removed from praxeology that it cannot be rationally grounded? Freely floating concept mathematics that cannot be grounded in human action is mathematics that approaches religion. The Banach-Tarski paradox would no longer be a paradox if the concept of infinity ceased being a foundation, and was instead used as an assisting mental tool to make clear the finiteness of that which is comprehended.
The LORD: All right, let’s move on. I specifically designed the physical universe, and the laws that govern it, to give evidence of My existence.
In other words, let’s move on past your initial assumptions that are the conclusions being questioned, let’s continue to beg the question, and get annoyed when too many questions are asked, and slap your hand down and say “I created the universe, I created the laws, I created the evidence of my existence, which means I exist. Shut up already!”
Many of your great scientists–even skeptics–have conceded that the charge on an electron and other parameters of the universe appear to have been deliberately calibrated to support human life.
In other words, let me sneak in the word “deliberately” before anyone notices, so that I can shoehorn in an intelligent designer/deity concept that the majority of the great scientists DO NOT accept.
The LORD: It’s interesting that the people who demand “empirical evidence” for My existence, themselves adopt a worldview that at step one posits an infinite number of entire universes, all of which by definition are incapable of ever being subject to empirical investigation.
It’s even more interesting that you actually believe “step one” is a positing of multiverses, rather than the reality of it actually being a subsequent step after non-theist empiricism and mathematical considerations. It’s also interesting that you see no problems in stealing theories from non-theist physics and mathematics, to use against atheists, as if you can prove the existence of God by way of secular logical thinking.
The LORD: Let’s move on, Steven. Why did you ignore all of the prophets I sent? Indeed I became human Myself, walked the earth for three decades, teaching and performing miracles, and telling everyone just Who I AM and about the nature of My Kingdom. Indeed, there was a book written about these events, and it sold quite nicely. Throughout the centuries, countless people of great creativity, courage, and passion performed great feats in My name. They all reported being in personal relationship with Me. Billions of people through history have reported feeling an emptiness that only I can fill. Every culture in human history has grappled with Me in its own way. None of this constituted evidence for you that I AM?
Claiming prophets were “sent”, presupposes theism to be true. Claiming God “became a human” in the form of Jesus presupposes theism to be true. Claiming miracles were “performed” presupposes theism to be true. Claiming theistic events in the bible really took place, does not presuppose theism to be true, but does presuppose inner logical consistency of theist concepts, which I hold do not exist. Claiming that people performed feats and say they did so in the name of a theistic concept, doesn’t make that theistic concept true. Claiming that since some people report “feeling less empty” by way of believing in a theistic concept, also doesn’t make that theistic concept true.
I can tell you that I feel far more “full” and far less “empty” by being a theological noncognitivist; by understanding that ALL theistic concepts are of the mind that is a part of me, and not something outside me. I will argue that theism has lead many people to feeling MORE empty by way of believing in God. By making their ideas “sacred”, they prostrate themselves and deny themselves ownership of those ideas in their fullest sense, and leaving the ultimate truth and reality to be outside their own bodies. They deny that the entirety of their religious mental concepts are completely and fully in them, in their minds, and nowhere else.
Claiming that since every culture has contained people who have thought about theistic concepts, and argued with others over it, doesn’t make the theist concept being debated true.
The LORD: What if there were a miraculous event that was simultaneously experienced by more than 10,000 people, with reporters present? You would believe then?
I will ask why nobody else on that side of the hemisphere, millions of whom were outside, reported seeing the same thing as the 10,000 people (who probably only claimed to have seen a dancing Sun because word got around that some people reported to have seen a dancing Sun, and because theistic people are already prone to being arrogant and solipsistic, and prone to believing in nonsense, they most likely claimed to have seen the same thing because they don’t want to believe God chose not to reveal himself to them. They will most likely think “People are yelling the Sun is dancing! The Sun is dancing! Yes! Yes! It’s dancing for me too!”, kind of like how a drunk will convince his drunken friend that the girl at the bar is good looking, when she wouldn’t appear that way if they were sober, and yet in their drunkenness, the one drunk was able to convince the other drunk that she is good looking.
Remember, I can say the above and not contradict my claim that these things are not valid empirical evidence, because I hold God to be inherently nonsensical, so I don’t have to take seriously subsequent claims of people believing in God, any more than I have to take seriously subsequent claims of people believing in square circles.
The LORD: Let me make sure I understand your position. You would only be willing to entertain even the possibility that a miracle had occurred, if you could reproduce it in a controlled setting, to understand the laws governing its occurrence.
The LORD: Generally speaking, people conceive of “miracles” as being deviations from the normal progress of natural laws. So your stance rules out miracles a priori. By definition, your approach would never let you detect any evidence of divine intervention.
You’re just presupposing your own version of theism to be true and all other versions of theism are false. Some theists believe that there is CONTINUOUS “divine intervention.” What would you say to those theists? How can you describe what a “miracle” is to them, if EVERYTHING is due to God’s intervention? Would you have to turn into an atheist for just one moment, explain to them that God doesn’t choose to have the Sun rotate each day, or to move through spacetime in its current trajectory, but that sometimes, God does interfere with the “natural” order, and alter the course of events to his liking rather than what would happen without his decision to act and interfere?
Please note you’ll never be able to give a logically consistent answer to this, it’s just to show how beginning with a square circle prevents you from making a fully logically consistent argument. You might make some logically consistent arguments based on certain assumptions, but once we address those assumptions, it will reveal more and more absurdity.
The LORD: Steven, did anybody ever tell you where babies come from?
The LORD: Expectant parents often watch instructional videos called some variant of, “The Miracle of Birth.” That title is quite appropriate. Every day, in cities across the world, new people are created. Somehow, existing sentient beings are able to ingest material from the outside world, and transform it into an assembly of molecules that apparently houses a new, intelligent being with a personality, hopes, desires, the capacity for love and hate…some would say, they created a vehicle into which a soul would be deposited. Now yes, your scientists have made inroads on the various physical processes involved, but would you say they are close to really understanding exactly where a new human being comes from?
LOL, did anyone else laugh at “Somehow”, as if ignorance of how it works, somehow is equivalent to knowing how it works (i.e. God did it)?
What’s the difference between a theist and an atheist both of whom don’t know how babies are created? The atheist won’t claim to answer on behalf of an intelligent designer/deity of the entire universe.
The LORD: Steven, Steven, Steven, don’t you see what you’re doing? Every thing you demand of Me, I grant. If something miraculous occurs very rarely, you say that is insufficient evidence. If something miraculous occurs every day, you say that it is too commonplace. What more can I do?
He who claims to speak on behalf of an intelligent designer/deity can’t ever be wrong no matter what happens with those assumptions. If something happens that humans can explain via science, then God did it. If something happens that human’s can’t explain via science, then God did it. No matter what happens, you claim God did it!
And you’re claiming that your belief in God is based on evidence? Please. Just admit that it is a way you view the world.
The LORD: Steven, please read what you wrote on a blog post at that sophomoric site Free Advice.
The LORD: My dear Steven, there are many things you may want to say to me now. But asking why I hid Myself from you cannot be one of them.
Suppose I pretended to be a theist Christian, and let’s stipulate you believed me (e.g. suppose you and I had a conversation the day after I stopped believing in the existence of God, and I haven’t announced my new convictions to anyone).
Now suppose I told you Landsberg’s story.
Since Christianity is a way you view the world, you’d almost certainly accept my story and you will almost certainly tell me that you “know” I experienced “God’s divine intervention.”
If you’re so willing to believe in my lie, because it is consistent with the way you view the world, then would it be so far fetched to suppose that you are also willing to believe in the lie that is God?
Or do you actually have proof that there really was only one paper left in Landsberg’s cart before two more appeared from God? Landsberg clearly doesn’t have adequate proof, how in the world can you claim his story is proof?
Tldr get over yourself
I can’t get over my own self. I am not a theist.
“There is zero evidence for God. There is evidence of you having the belief in God.”
Shocker! The guy who says it is impossible for there to be evidence of God thinks there is no evidence of God. GET OUT!
The guy who says it is impossible for there to be evidence of God thinks there is no evidence of God.
I could arrive at that conclusion either as a theological noncognitivist or as an honest theist. It doesn’t matter.
That no honest theist has ever presented valid evidence up to this point in time, just dovetails nicely with the theological noncognitivist’s position of the impossibility of such evidence.
Yes, if I start believing in the possibility of square circles, then I just might start labelling optical illusions that might be interpreted as square circles, to be valid evidence of them.
For the theist who claims that there is valid evidence for the existence of God, such as objects falling off the shelf, such as flipping to the correct page in the bible (hahaha), such as witnessing wood objects move without an Earthly force, then the obligation is on them to show this evidence in a duplicable manner.
Murphy completely dropped the ball on what he really believes when he said this (through the “LORD”):
“The LORD: Steven, Steven, Steven, don’t you see what you’re doing? Every thing you demand of Me, I grant. If something miraculous occurs very rarely, you say that is insufficient evidence. If something miraculous occurs every day, you say that it is too commonplace. What more can I do?”
Here Murphy claims that the real evidence for God’s existence is everything that exists “normally.” So his previous post that listed the alleged reasons for why he believes in God, are not in fact his reasons. He can’t base his belief on both “magical events” and “all events”. If he were consistent, he should have just listed one thing and one thing only, namely “Everything that exists is evidence for why I believe in God.”
Of course, if he did that, then his worldview would clearly be seen for what it really is: A way to view the world, rather than a conviction based on certain instances of “magical” evidence, like the things he listed in his previous post.
You have the rather funny belief that somehow I am in the wrong because the way I view the world is somehow prejudicially influencing my convictions of that which I observe, such that I am allegedly blind to the actual evidence of God’s existence, and yet you don’t have the wits to see that Murphy is doing the exact same thing. He clearly stated in the quote above that he believes everything that exists is evidence of the existence of God. What else is that than a way in which Murphy views the world, which prejudicially influences his judgments on that which he observes?
I would take what you said more seriously if you stopped saying there is zero evidence of God. Just say it is impossible for there to be evidence of God and then people know where they stand with you. You constantly challenge people to show you evidence that you believe is impossible to present. It’s a tiresome exercise. Instead of having people waste their time trying to show you evidence that you’ll just deny is evidence, why don’t you just debate why it is you believe the existence of God is impossible? At least if the debate was centered around the possibility of God and not evidence then the debate would have the chance of being fruitful.
I would take what you said more seriously if you stopped saying there is zero evidence of God.
That’s funny to hear you say that, after you just made a statement (“Shocker! The guy who says it is impossible for there to be evidence of God thinks there is no evidence of God. GET OUT!”) that I hope you can understand shouldn’t be taken seriously.
I am actually not interested in whether you take me seriously or not. It’s not something that keeps me up at night.
If you dispute my conviction that no valid evidence exists, then prove me wrong and show me this evidence that I can duplicate in principle.
Just say it is impossible for there to be evidence of God and then people know where they stand with you.
But why should I say that when my position is that no evidence exists AND it would be impossible for such evidence to exist? Like I said, if I was an honest theist who understood what constitutes valid evidence, my conviction that no valid evidence exists would stand.
That I also am convinced that such evidence is impossible, isn’t what is “preventing me from seeing the truth.” There wasn’t evidence before I became a theological noncognitivist and there hasn’t evidence since.
You constantly challenge people to show you evidence that you believe is impossible to present.
That shouldn’t bother you. If you truly believed that the alleged evidence is actual valid evidence, then my personal conviction that such evidence is impossible shouldn’t stop you from proclaiming from the rooftops that you have it.
It’s a tiresome exercise. Instead of having people waste their time trying to show you evidence that you’ll just deny is evidence, why don’t you just debate why it is you believe the existence of God is impossible? At least if the debate was centered around the possibility of God and not evidence then the debate would have the chance of being fruitful.
I would gladly do that, but remember, Murphy is the one who made a post detailing alleged evidence for God’s existence, so maybe the next post he does regarding the inner consistency of the concept God, we can go down that route.
If you want me to make the case for why I consider the concept of God to be incoherent and contradictory, then I would ask that you first Google “theological noncognitivism”, so that you don’t waste my time. I don’t want to make a logical case if you’re just going to deny that logic allows man to know absolute truths of reality and thus reject everything I say no matter what I say.
“That’s funny to hear you say that, after you just made a statement (“Shocker! The guy who says it is impossible for there to be evidence of God thinks there is no evidence of God. GET OUT!”) that I hope you can understand shouldn’t be taken seriously.”
You have a reading comprehension problem. My point wasn’t that I would take you more seriously if you stopped believing that there is no evidence of God. It only reads the way you interpreted it if you cut out the second sentence.
“If you dispute my conviction that no valid evidence exists, then prove me wrong and show me this evidence that I can duplicate in principle.”
You seem incapable of understanding the point. I’m not religious and have no desire to try and present evidence of something I’m not sure about. That doesn’t change the fact that asking someone to present evidence to YOU, the person who says there is no evidence you would accept, is beyond pointless.
Dan wrote to Major Freedom:
You seem incapable of understanding the point. I’m not religious and have no desire to try and present evidence of something I’m not sure about. That doesn’t change the fact that asking someone to present evidence to YOU, the person who says there is no evidence you would accept, is beyond pointless.
Dan, we’re in uncharted territories. About 2 days ago, I realized it was pointless to argue about religion with Major Freedom. (Doesn’t mean I’m right and he’s wrong, just means it’s pointless for us to argue about it.) Now, I realize through your efforts that’s it’s pointless to argue with Major Freedom about arguing about religion with Major Freedom.
You have a reading comprehension problem. My point wasn’t that I would take you more seriously if you stopped believing that there is no evidence of God. It only reads the way you interpreted it if you cut out the second sentence.
So when you said you would take me more seriously if I stopped believing that there is no evidence for God, you didn’t actually mean you would take me more seriously if I stopped believing that there is no evidence for God?
Goodness, I don’t think the problem is my lack of reading comprehension, it is your inability to express what you mean. How does including or excluding the second sentence, change the fact that you said you would take me more seriously if I stopped believing there is no evidence for God? I actually hold that conviction! Why would I drop it?
You seem incapable of understanding the point. I’m not religious and have no desire to try and present evidence of something I’m not sure about. That doesn’t change the fact that asking someone to present evidence to YOU, the person who says there is no evidence you would accept, is beyond pointless.
Where did I say that I will never accept any evidence? I said that no valid evidence exists. Do you see the difference?
My argument is not that I demand Murphy show ME evidence. I know it’s a fool’s quest!
My argument, that is obviously utterly lost on you, is that if Murphy is going to claim that his experiences are valid evidence, then according to the criteria of what constitutes valid evidence, it will have to be reproducible, and not just his claims from memory. I don’t have to stand empty headed, I mean open minded, ready to accept his evidence as actually proving the existence of God, before I can say hey wait a minute, those personal claims from memory are not valid evidence according to what constitutes the very nature of valid evidence!
Egads people, like are we really so emotional here that we can’t even identify and understand the meanings of the words we choose to utilize?
“So when you said you would take me more seriously if I stopped believing that there is no evidence for God, you didn’t actually mean you would take me more seriously if I stopped believing that there is no evidence for God?
Goodness, I don’t think the problem is my lack of reading comprehension, it is your inability to express what you mean. How does including or excluding the second sentence, change the fact that you said you would take me more seriously if I stopped believing there is no evidence for God? I actually hold that conviction! Why would I drop it?”
Yes, you have a reading comprehension problem. I never said that you should stop BELIEVING. I said you should stop SAYING. I said instead you should say that it is impossible for there to be evidence of God so that people know where you are coming from.
“Where did I say that I will never accept any evidence? I said that no valid evidence exists. Do you see the difference?”
Well that’s an easy one. You said last week,
“Dan then challenged me and said that if you can duplicate your experiences, then one would have to elevate it to valid empirical evidence. I said for positivist scientists, yes, but not for me, because I hold the concept God to be meaningless and inherently illogical.”
and
“then my personal conviction that such evidence is impossible…”
Egads MF, are you really so emotional here that you can’t even identify and understand the meanings of the words you choose to utilize?
Dan, we’re in uncharted territories. About 2 days ago, I realized it was pointless to argue about religion with Major Freedom. (Doesn’t mean I’m right and he’s wrong, just means it’s pointless for us to argue about it.) Now, I realize through your efforts that’s it’s pointless to argue with Major Freedom about arguing about religion with Major Freedom.
So that’s it, huh? It’s pointless to argue with someone who is convinced of their views that are contrary to yours? Wait, didn’t God plan for this? Aren’t I just doing exactly what the intelligent designer originally put into the universe along with the temporal laws? LOL, you’re arguing against God’s plan you heathen! No wait, if you’re arguing, then that also means you’re going God’s plan! So God planned for there to be atheists and Christians! Wait, if God planned for there to be atheists, then he planned to create and then infinitely torment these humans after they die. Oops, sorry, that would make God evil, so we have to contradict ourselves and say humans have the ultimate power to choose what they do. Whew! That was a close one.
Dealing with someone who is convinced they are right no matter what you say is similar to dealing with a non-human physical material object. After all, apodictic claims to objective truth should “overlap” with objective reality. So just like it’s “pointless” arguing with a tree, so too is it “pointless” to argue with me. Or is it?
Would it be pointless to give up on a tree sapling that you cannot seem to be able to grow? I trust you will say no.
I don’t think it’s pointless to argue with you over this because I consider you like a tree that I can’t figure out, and probably never will figure out completely, because I am like a tree as well. That alone can provide a million years worth of inquiry and arguing. Learning about the universe is an equivalent learning about ourselves. I learn about me by learning about you. I think it’s the exact opposite of pointlessness. But that’s just me. You have your own subjective value scale.
What I do know that as a Christian, it is your moral duty to keep trying to convince atheists to become Christian. I was endlessly told by pastors and elders when I was a Christian that it was my moral duty to convert everyone to Christianity, and that I should never give up on anyone, that I should reach out to even rapists and murderers (that disgusted me by the way).
Is God not giving you the strength to succeed? Or am I the devil? Old testament Murphy or new testament Murphy? Condemn me to hell, or release the spirit in me through spreading Jesus’ word? Choices choices!
Maybe another object has to fall off the shelf again before the feeling of power is great enough to spread God’s word to us misguided, arrogant atheists, who in our misguided and arrogant confusion, refuse to speak on behalf of a supernatural deity that supposedly created the entire universe and whose message is relayed through our distinct, physical – yet allegedly very humble – minds.
I do not rest my convictions on God, I do not rest them on “humanity”, I do not rest them on convention, I do not rest them on geographical happenstance of my body that contains more Christians than Muslims, I do not rest them on anything outside me. I rest them all on my mind.
Ghosts, spooks, spirits, angels, demons, gods, all of these conceptions are the product of a mind struggling to accept the reality of its own existence. These minds place the true existence totally outside one’s mind and body, in some “spiritual” world. The mind that refuses to accept that it is not other things, and is separated from other things, and is hence in a struggle for existence vis a vis other things, finds solace in imagining that one’s true reality resides elsewhere other than firmly grounded in one’s own body and ONLY one’s own body. That’s what religion is to me.
Yes, you have a reading comprehension problem. I never said that you should stop BELIEVING. I said you should stop SAYING.
Stop saying…that I believe there is no evidence for the existence of God!
Why are you divorcing statements from convictions?
I said instead you should say that it is impossible for there to be evidence of God so that people know where you are coming from.
That’s putting words into my mouth. I hold that there is no valid evidence for the existence of God, and that God is an inherently illogical concept. I can hold both. I don’t need to hold only the latter.
“Where did I say that I will never accept any evidence? I said that no valid evidence exists. Do you see the difference?”
Well that’s an easy one. You said last week,
“Dan then challenged me and said that if you can duplicate your experiences, then one would have to elevate it to valid empirical evidence. I said for positivist scientists, yes, but not for me, because I hold the concept God to be meaningless and inherently illogical.”
It would be valid evidence to positivist scientists, which is something like 99% of the world’s populations of scientists.
I am not a positivist scientist, so I would personally reject them as impossible.
Egads MF, are you really so emotional here that you can’t even identify and understand the meanings of the words you choose to utilize?
But I do understand the meanings of the words I chose to utilize. It is true that reproducible empirical “testing” is considered valid scientific evidence. Just because I think it’s impossible for it to prove the existence of an inherently illogical concept, that doesn’t mean it ceases to be valid scientific evidence.
I think your confusion rests on not understanding that not all valid scientific evidence proves a hypothesized theory correct. I think you’re getting sidetracked by the word “evidence.” Evidence does not mean proof of the theory. Evidence gathering is a non-committed, empirical data collection that fits the criteria of what constitutes proper evidence. Whether or not it confirms or falsifies a theory, is an entirely separate question.
Have you ever carried out a scientific experiment? The reason why profs harp on you about selection bias, size of sample, and whatnot, is to make the empirical data valid evidence BEFORE you go ahead and test your theory using the data. The empirical data does NOT become “valid evidence” only after the theory is seen as consistent with the evidence. It has to meet a minimum criteria in and of itself first. That is what I tried to get across about the personal experiences not being valid evidence.
MF and Dan, let me try something to help mediate this dispute, since it takes time from my work to approve your comments…
MF, suppose some postmodernist English major at Harvard said, “People say there can’t be a square circle, but I know there can be. In fact, I dreamed about one last night. Unfortunately I can’t remember exactly what it looked like, but I swear to you guys, I saw it clearly in my dream and it was really a square and a circle at the same time.”
Then I go nuts on the moron, and say, “Huh?! I think that’s a really weak case. I defy you to show me how you can draw a square circle. I want to see valid, reproducible evidence.”
Don’t you think that would be a weird thing for me to say to the person? Can’t you understand why he might be flummoxed if I then said, two days into the argument, “Oh, by the way, nothing in principle you could show me, would convince me. I think the very concept of a square circle is nonsense.” ?
Can you at least understand where Dan (for example) would be coming from, if he said, “Bob, you’re kind of being coy in your arguments here. Just tell the guy flat-out he is wrong, because a square circle is impossible. Stop asking him to produce ‘reproducible’ evidence when you define that to be impossible from the outset.” ? And notice, it’s not because Dan actually believes in square circles, it’s because Dan thinks my debating style would be very confusing.
Dr. Murphy, you were right. Still, I’m a glutton for punishment.
“Stop saying…that I believe there is no evidence for the existence of God!
Why are you divorcing statements from convictions?”
I’ll try again. I do not care if you believe there is no evidence for the existence of God. My point has always been that you keep challenging people to show you evidence even though you believe it is an impossible task. That is pointless. If you just said that you believe that it is impossible to present evidence of the existence of God that would at least let others understand that they would be wasting their time to try to prove otherwise to you.
“Just because I think it’s impossible for it to prove the existence of an inherently illogical concept, that doesn’t mean it ceases to be valid scientific evidence.”
Really? How can you make a statement like that and not see how you are wasting people’s time? You say that someone could present you with valid scientific evidence but even then you would still deny the possibility of God. So I am not putting words in your mouth when I say that you believe it is impossible for there to be evidence that God exists. When you challenge people to present you with evidence, that you will most assuredly deny no matter if it is scientific or not, is a pointless exercise.
“I think your confusion rests on not understanding that not all valid scientific evidence proves a hypothesized theory correct. I think you’re getting sidetracked by the word “evidence.”
I’m not confused about any of this. I’m not trying to prove God exists or that he doesn’t exist. I’m trying to prove that people are wasting their time trying to show you evidence of God’s existence. They are wasting their time because even if you accepted it as scientifically sound evidence you would still deny the existence of God. I am trying to prove that debating you on the existence of God based on evidence is a hopeless cause and a tiresome exercise with no benefit. In that, thanks to your responses, I have succeeded.
I must have been writing my response at the same time as Dr. Murphy. His example is exactly what I’m saying.
I’m done so your work won’t be interrupted by me anymore on this topic.
MF, suppose some postmodernist English major at Harvard said, “People say there can’t be a square circle, but I know there can be. In fact, I dreamed about one last night. Unfortunately I can’t remember exactly what it looked like, but I swear to you guys, I saw it clearly in my dream and it was really a square and a circle at the same time.”
Then I go nuts on the moron, and say, “Huh?! I think that’s a really weak case. I defy you to show me how you can draw a square circle. I want to see valid, reproducible evidence.”
I think you’re conflating logically necessary arguments with empirical arguments.
They’re different.
Don’t you think that would be a weird thing for me to say to the person?
No, I don’t.
If the astrology professor at NYU claimed to have visions of a square circle, then he is either mistaken about what he saw, or he doesn’t know what a square circle really is.
The human mind cannot even grasp what a square circle is, because it is inherently illogical. It would be like claiming to have seen A that is also not A.
You’re not presenting direct evidence of God itself. You are presenting moving objects, and page flipping, which are empirical data that fall into the category of having to be reproducible.
Can’t you understand why he might be flummoxed if I then said, two days into the argument, “Oh, by the way, nothing in principle you could show me, would convince me. I think the very concept of a square circle is nonsense.” ?
I would say it shouldn’t matter to him that I personally reject the anecdotal experience as valid evidence, and that it has to be reproducible in order to be valid evidence, and that if I personally reject it, at least you’ll have something that will make the positivist scientists notice.
Can you at least understand where Dan (for example) would be coming from, if he said, “Bob, you’re kind of being coy in your arguments here. Just tell the guy flat-out he is wrong, because a square circle is impossible. Stop asking him to produce ‘reproducible’ evidence when you define that to be impossible from the outset.” ? And notice, it’s not because Dan actually believes in square circles, it’s because Dan thinks my debating style would be very confusing.
I don’t think you would be wrong in asking that he provide reproducible evidence, despite the fact that you won’t accept it. He still has to meet the minimum requirements of what constitutes valid evidence, and he has to provide reproducible evidence whether you believe in square circles or not.
I mean why does this even matter? Suppose I kept to myself the part about inherently illogical concepts making provable evidence an impossibility. Suppose I was “open minded” and personally willing to be convinced that square circles exist, as long as there is sufficient evidence.
You’d STILL be obligated to provide reproducible evidence and not just your personal anecdotes!
This isn’t about convincing me that God exists. This is about your claim that you have valid evidence, and my disputing that contention. I am just insisting that you meet the minimum requirements. You were the one who made the claim that your personal experiences are valid evidence.
Are you saying that I cannot even make the argument that your personal experiences are not valid evidence, on the basis that you know I am going to say they cannot be proof of an illogical concept?
The equivalent to this is like an atheist saying a Christian cannot perform science experiments that disprove intelligent design, on the basis that he is just going to believe God did it all anyway and so his evidence can never be valid evidence. Only if he believes it is valid evidence that disproves intelligent design will it allegedly become valid evidence.
I mean come on! It’s almost as if you’re using me an an excuse to deny what you are scientifically obligated to do. This is about the minimum standards of science, not convincing me personally that God exists.
Dan:
I’ll try again. I do not care if you believe there is no evidence for the existence of God. My point has always been that you keep challenging people to show you evidence even though you believe it is an impossible task.
This is about minimum standards of science. This is not about convincing me personally that God exists.
If I said that someone must acquire valid evidence, which is resproducible, and they actually go through the efforts of doing so, only to then find out that I reject the theory as inherently illogical, and thus the evidence moot, and then that person believes his efforts are all for not, then I would wonder what the agenda is of the person presenting the evidence. Clearly it is not a search for truth, because if it were, he should have gone out and reproduce the evidence himself without anyone asking. These personal experiences are to me just lazy cop outs that are for people who only want their pre-existing worldview validated, rather than painstakingly critiqued and prodded and criticized by themselves.
That is pointless. If you just said that you believe that it is impossible to present evidence of the existence of God that would at least let others understand that they would be wasting their time to try to prove otherwise to you.
But I am not the only observer of Murphy’s assertions, Dan. By asking that Murphy meet the minimum standards for what constitutes valid scientific evidence, I am asking on behalf of all of Murphy’s doubters and the entire science profession,
It should not matter one single iota that I personally will reject it as proof of an illogical concept. We’re supposed to be concerned with the truth, more so than convincing each other. Because of that, there are minimum requirements that must be met. The most important is that if Murphy is going to claim he has evidence, then it has to at least be reproducible. I can be the one to say this, even though everyone knows I will reject it all anyway.
“Just because I think it’s impossible for it to prove the existence of an inherently illogical concept, that doesn’t mean it ceases to be valid scientific evidence.”
Really? How can you make a statement like that and not see how you are wasting people’s time?
Are you actually saying that my argument that all evidence must at least meet certain minimum requirements, is asking to “waste people’s time”, on the basis that I would personally reject it anyway?
What is with you? This is not about convincing me that God exists, this is about meeting minimum standards of science. That is something everyone should do regardless of there are atheists like me who will reject it all anyway.
This isn’t about me. This isn’t about convincing me. This isn’t about me asking to waste people’s time. If you actually think that asking people to meet the minimum standards is a waste of time, then with all due respect, you just aren’t serious enough as a thinker. I should not be the one to have to say this. Anyone who is serious about claiming to have evidence of God must take it upon themselves to have reproducible evidence, or else it doesn’t even meet the minimum standard. Anyone can point this out, atheist or theist.
You say that someone could present you with valid scientific evidence but even then you would still deny the possibility of God.
No, not present it me personally. I am not the scientific process. I am asking that he present the evidence he claims to have to everyone here, on this blog, and not just personal anecdotes.
So I am not putting words in your mouth when I say that you believe it is impossible for there to be evidence that God exists.
That’s a different argument from the one about Murphy having to present valid evidence to the field of science.
When you challenge people to present you with evidence, that you will most assuredly deny no matter if it is scientific or not, is a pointless exercise.
I am not asking that I be the only one to see it. Murphy should show it to others if he claims to have evidence.
“I think your confusion rests on not understanding that not all valid scientific evidence proves a hypothesized theory correct. I think you’re getting sidetracked by the word “evidence.”
I’m not confused about any of this.
I honestly think you are. You are confused in believing that Muprhy is off the hook in having to meet the minimum standards for presenting valid evidence, on the basis that my personal conviction matters. I am not the science community. I am not the one who came up with the necessity of reproducibility.
I’m not trying to prove God exists or that he doesn’t exist.
Yes, I realize that. This is not about your belief or disbelief in God, this is not about my belief or disbelief in God. This is about Murphy’s claim that he has evidence, and my insistence that he doesn’t have valid evidence until it is reproducible.
I’m trying to prove that people are wasting their time trying to show you evidence of God’s existence. They are wasting their time because even if you accepted it as scientifically sound evidence you would still deny the existence of God. I am trying to prove that debating you on the existence of God based on evidence is a hopeless cause and a tiresome exercise with no benefit. In that, thanks to your responses, I have succeeded.
You have utterly failed, because you too believe that it is a waste of time to collect reproducible evidence after claiming to have evidence. You too believe that this is about my personal convictions, when this is really about meeting minimum requirements.
You have failed because you think it’s a waste of time to meet the minimum requirements of scientific evidence, and you and Murphy are both using me as an excuse.
You guys are being sloppy, you guys are claiming it is a waste of time to do what every honest scientist would go out of their way to do without being asked.
You know what I think is happening here? I think more people here are doubting their own convictions than I first realized.
If someone had a theory, and they were serious about finding empirical consistency, then they should only be too eager to collect reproducible data. They shouldn’t care if someone else asked them to find it, only to then find out they won’t even accept it anyway. If they were serious, it wouldn’t matter.
If however they gave up at the first opportunity of learning that someone would reject it anyway, if they used that as an excuse to not provide reproducible evidence, then I would question just how serious they are in their convictions. I would start to suspect that they deep down believe it’s all nonsense, and they’re just using me as an excuse to deny doing what they are scientifically obligated to do.
Here’s a suggestion: If any scientist thinks it’s a waste of time to collect the proper evidence for a theory they’re shouting from the rooftops is true, and that everyone else is wrong about, then I will say they’re not as serious as you believe them to be.
Why aren’t you demanding that Murphy meet the minimum standards for what constitutes valid evidence? Since you’re clearly very interested in this, does the cat got your tongue? Or are you not serious about evidence for God?
Alright one last thing and then I’m done.
“If I said that someone must acquire valid evidence, which is resproducible, and they actually go through the efforts of doing so, only to then find out that I reject the theory as inherently illogical, and thus the evidence moot, and then that person believes his efforts are all for not, then I would wonder what the agenda is of the person presenting the evidence. Clearly it is not a search for truth, because if it were, he should have gone out and reproduce the evidence himself without anyone asking. These personal experiences are to me just lazy cop outs that are for people who only want their pre-existing worldview validated, rather than painstakingly critiqued and prodded and criticized by themselves.”
I’m not saying that Christians shouldn’t go out and try to present evidence of God. I’m simply saying that presenting it to YOU is a waste of time. I’m saying that debating YOU on the merits of evidence is a waste of their time. I believe Christians would be better served doing just about anything other than debating YOU over evidence.
I’m not saying you are wrong. I’m not saying you are stupid. I’m saying to all Christians that they waste their time in engaging people who believe the way you do.
I thought this part was quite good:
The LORD: It’s interesting that the people who demand “empirical evidence” for My existence, themselves adopt a worldview that at step one posits an infinite number of entire universes, all of which by definition are incapable of ever being subject to empirical investigation.
Landsburg: What’s your point?
I’m pretty anti-religion but think you make some valid points about the lack of certainty in which we can dispel the notion of there being a creator. It wouldn’t surprise me if there was one. Given how small our knowledge is, and must be, it seems foolish to claim any meaningful degree of certainty either way.
What I am most curious is, what convinces you that your particular strain of religion is the correct one. I can follow you and understand why you believe there is a God. But I fail to grasp why it must be the specific one of Evangelicals, that is different from even other Christians, not too mention other religions entirely.
Put another way, if you grew up in another culture and had the same experience you discussed earlier, but Buddhism was the dominant religion and there were no evangelical christrians, don’t you think you would probably be a Buddhist (or whatever religion you were familiar with)?
I am also curious what led him to Christianity from atheism. I doubt he would have became anything other than a Christian though. I don’t have any idea what his family background is as far as religion is concerned but it’s probably safe to say he was exposed to Christian ideas before he became an atheist. So I would guess that he would probably still be an atheist if he were never exposed to Christian ideas. Obviously that is just a guess but I find it hard to believe that anyone who grew up in this country and became a devout atheist would be swayed to a religion simply because it was the dominant religion in that area.
Robert, I just realized that Dr. Murphy has spelled out why he is a Christian. I had even read the posts but for some reason I was having a mental block yesterday and forgot about them. The title of the posts are, wait for it, Why I Am a Christian.
I keep expecting Rowan Atkinson to step out of the shadows and say, “Sorry Christians, but the Jews were right.”
This is quite an interesting one… can God actually claim credit for the rules of mathematics? For that matter, could God arbitrarily create another reality where the fundamental basis of our present mathematics does not work?
I would argue that the answers are “No” and “No”, regardless of how powerful or all knowing God might be.
Suppose for example that I challenge God to show me a universe where counting numbers do not exist… and I mean “do not exist” even as mathematical concept, divorced from any physical reality of counting a bunch of objects.
As soon as I get to that universe I just start counting in my head and suddenly counting numbers DO exist in that universe… as a mathematical concept at any rate. I agree that maybe the concept might not be terribly useful under certain circumstances, but regardless of that the mathematics itself still exists.
Same for Euclidean geometry, it’s an abstract concept anyhow, we don’t have real Euclidean geometry anywhere in our current physical universe. Be that as it may, under those abstract precepts that define Euclidean geometry, we can say that PI is the ratio of a circle’s diameter to its circumference. That’s a theoretical result completely independent of reality, independent of who is thinking this, and I would argue independent of God too (not just one God, but all of them put together).
There is plenty of evidence I would accept as pointing towards a god. But given our world looks as if it’s not designed (yes the underlying physics of our universe are not explained, but if the universe was designed for us why create all the other lifeless planets? why create the billions of other stars in our galaxy? why create billions of other galaxies in the universe? why before humans came into existence create and then subsequently destroy 98% of all the species that have ever existed on the planet? why create our planet next to a sun that will eventually blow up and destroy the earth? why create the milky way galaxy to be on a collision course with Andromeda? So when the whole picture is viewed it surely does not appear the universe was created especially for us), the evidence would need to be heavy.
But we could start with prayer to a certain god having ANY affect on the observable world. This would be suggestive. And maybe real miracles that would happen consistently and would not disappear under close observation. Or maybe religious texts that contained anything about germ theory, bacteria, dinosaurs or anything else that could not have otherwise been known by people of the time. But instead we are stuck with a solar system where it appears we are a small blip in the overall universe, and religious texts that appear is if they were written by uneducated humans thousands of years ago.
Also, some comments might say “But we have miracles! What about time X when thousands of people saw and reported a miracle!” I would respond that religious believers are easy to fool, especially in large numbers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7BQKu0YP8Y (peter popoff)
How are we supposed to tell between real miracles and when someone like peter popoff is scamming people? Real miracles should not disappear under close observation.
To test our faith.
“To test our faith.”
Good answer. But you’re implicitly admitting that the evidence for a god is weak. If the evidence was strong, faith could not be tested.
Yes, but to someone who would say “to test our faith,” there obviously isn’t any need for strong evidence.
I’m not religious, btw (let alone Christian). I’m just playing the devil’s advocate.
Anyways, I can see the problem between people who say belief should rest on faith and people who say that belief rests on ample evidence.
“if the universe was designed for us why create all the other lifeless planets?”
You’re making an invalid leap. That a watch was designed to keep time does not demonstrate that every aspect of the device is geared exclusively toward that purpose. Likewise, that the universe was designed for man does not imply that creation is “all about us.”
(Incidentally, a large portion of mankind seems to get a great deal of pleasure out of studying—and contemplating—the heavens. So I suppose even they could have been created with us in mind.)
All of those questions could be answered, it’s not very hard. If the laws of physics remain consistent, then one would expect billions of planets. And the stars are need to see at night. Where you have stars you have planets often. Why would the sun explode at some point? DUHH! Because we aren’t going to be here forever. Did you even try to answer your own questions before asking them.
So your response to the above argument is to point out that matter follows the laws of physics? Of course it does. But given the reality of the universe and our place in it, it certainly appears as if we arrived here by chance on a common planet, in a common galaxy.
I’m open to the possibility that the physics of our universe were created in some way (at this point there really is no way to prove any current theories), but it looks like after that initial point what happened next was matter interacting, stars going supernova, and planets getting created by chance.
Of course you could post hoc say “Well duh! dinosaurs were created for us, because we love studying dinosaur bones!”. That could be so, but what I’m arguing is we don’t need a guiding deity to explain how these things came to be. Again, if these types of things were explained in the bible it would be convincing, but they are not, the bible appears to be written by common men without god’s assistance.
There is no argument (that I know of) where god could be disproven, but I’m a big fan of Occam’s razor. If a piece of information is not needed to describe a hypothesis, then it’s not needed. It’s like when someone sees a glare in the sky and claims it’s a UFO. It may well be an alien craft, but if the glare can be explained by a passing 747 plane, I’m more inclined to accept the 747 explanation.
Hi Bob,
The following is an example of someone having non-theistic “supernatural” experiences. Is the woman at 10:25 on this video recalling actual events, or would you offer a different explanation for what she experienced?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiPprH7tEi8
Here are the relevant quotes:
“I felt and saw several dolphin spirits come to me, and they asked me to become one of their ambassadors on land … One of the first things the dolphins asked me to do was to hold a weekly dolphin energy meditation in our home … People have very tangible real experiences of being touched by the dolphin energy in my living room, here in Sedona, Arizona.”
And how does she interpret the above experiences?
“I believe that [dolphins are] more highly evolved beings than we are … I believe that they’re more intelligent than we humans are … and I perceive them as guardians of our planet.”
The above is the dolphin version of your “Why I Know There Is a God” post. Is she wrong or are you both right? Either way, your take on this is highly relevant to the ongoing discussion.
One person’s experience is not comparable to mass revelation, yes maybe maybe on a minute chance every person who witnessed god’s revelation at Sinai was crazy but that is such a small chance that im gonna live my life under the assumption that they werent
Anonymouse wrote:
“History does not reflect favorably upon the ‘I don’t get it, so god did it!’ hypothesis.”
Bob wrote:
“I think we can stop here, Anonymouse. You have just agreed that no matter what happens, you will not consider it a miracle.”
I didn’t say that at all. What I said was, “History does not reflect favorably upon the ‘I don’t get it, so god did it!’ hypothesis.” If you think history reflects favorably upon the “I don’t get it, so god did it!’ hypothesis, then by all means lay out your historical case, but I would appreciate it if you would refrain from putting letters in my fingers.
“If just a few people report seeing it, you doubt their report.”
I may doubt the truth of their explanation, but I wouldn’t rule it out entirely unless it directly contradicted something I knew to be true. Extraordinary claims necessitate extraordinary evidence, and lacking such evidence, I will either withhold judgment or – guided by knowledge of similar claims – provisionally determine the claim to be erroneous pending further revelations to the contrary. I “dare” you to point out where I’m being unreasonable, as you appear to be implying.
“And if the whole hemisphere reported seeing it, you would search for a naturalistic explanation.”
Of course. But merely searching for a natural explanation does not equate with ruling out the super natural. How about you? Would you assume it to be evidence of the Christian god? Would you not search for a natural explanation? Would you withhold judgment pending a detailed investigation and analysis?
Do you think there have ever been non-miracles that were mistaken for miracles? And if so, is it unreasonable to wonder if that also occurred in Portugal (especially considering the fact that they could not have possibly witnessed what they claimed to have witnessed, since their claim that the sun was dancing was contradicted by millions of other people)?
“At this point I’m not even criticizing your world view. But don’t you see, that you have inoculated yourself against seeing any evidence that God exists?”
I don’t see that at all, and I think my comments above should dispel you of such notions, but to be explicit: I absolutely do NOT rule out the possibility of the supernatural. I simply expect claims of the supernatural to meet certain minimum standards of evidence and logic.
“So you shouldn’t be aghast at others who don’t interpret the evidence the way you do.”
The problem is, I haven’t seen any interpretation at all. You have presented some evidence but have yet to even attempt to connect the dots for us.
Assuming you did here a voice in your head, isn’t there more than one possible origin of that voice? What rational process did you go through to narrow down the origin of the voice to a god, let alone the Christian one?
At what point will we learn of the connection between thousands of people mistakenly believing they saw the sun dance and the god of the NT? I see the evidence, but I’m still waiting for the interpretation.
“They aren’t inventing evidence where there is none, they have just decided not to exclude its very possibility at the outset, as you’ve done.”
I have done no such thing. I accept the evidence, and I’m waiting for someone to make an explicit case for what exactly it is evidence of. Your strategy appears to be to characterize my style of argumentation or to accuse me of being close minded rather than to deal with the highly relevant questions I have asked and points I have made.
For instance, you have yet to acknowledge the fact that the people of Fatima, Portugal could not possibly have witnessed the sun dancing, because that would have been an event that other people in other locations would have also witnessed. Why not at least attempt to grapple with this legitimate observation?
Nor have you given your opinion on non-Christian supernatural claims. Nor have you explained how you know that you were not tricked your brain, advanced technology, a ghost, or the devil. Nor have you commented on the fact that children are known to have conversations with imaginary friends.
The list goes on and on, but rather than rising to the occasion, you appear to be looking for an easy way out. I hope you will pardon me for being so blunt, but I think your implied accusation that I’m being unreasonable is simply a cop-out and a way to avoid facing legitimate challenges to your worldview.
I welcome some real honest intellectual engagement, and I would love to debate you in another more amenable forum.
“(especially considering the fact that they could not have possibly witnessed what they claimed to have witnessed, since their claim that the sun was dancing was contradicted by millions of other people)”
That is why it was called a miracle. You keep saying we are wrong to charge you with ruling out God from the outset but you keep ruling out God from the outset in all your responses. You see, they could have possibly witnessed what they claimed to have witnessed if God did it.
“(especially considering the fact that they could not have possibly witnessed what they claimed to have witnessed, since their claim that the sun was dancing was contradicted by millions of other people)”
That is why it was called a miracle.
Wait, so miracles are, according to you, not events that exist outside of people observing them, but rather they are perceptions that some people have but others don’t?
Couldn’t agree more!
No, I believe that it could have been a miracle even if the entire hemisphere had seen it.
So when you said “that is why it is called a miracle”, the “that” you were referring to wasn’t the quote “their claim that the sun was dancing was contradicted by millions of other people”??
No, the “that” just didn’t mean that was the only way for something to be called a miracle.
But you said that’s why it was a miracle.
“You keep saying we are wrong to charge you with ruling out God from the outset but you keep ruling out God from the outset in all your responses.”
Incorrect. What I ruled out was the idea of the sun simultaneously dancing and not dancing.
Ok, for arguments sake, let’s say that God does exist. Are you saying that the creator of the universe would be unable to that?
“Ok, for arguments sake, let’s say that God does exist. Are you saying that the creator of the universe would be unable to that?”
I wouldn’t rule out the people in Fatima, Portugal being sucked into a parallel dimension where THAT sun was dancing, while the sun in our dimension was NOT dancing. I would, however, rule out the sun in any given dimension dancing and not dancing at the same time.
The Lord to unbelievers, Jules Winnfield version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmvnXKRfdb8
This one time, I hit my toe on a futon while I was getting up to use the lavatory.
It really hurt.
That was when I realized God was a lie.
I realized God was a lie after a voice in my head told me God was a lie, and after I didn’t see a wooden toy that I should have seen, and after I couldn’t figure out why an object fell from the shelf, and after I just so happened to have turned to the right page in The Origin of Species after thinking about humans altering the appearance of pigeons through selectively breeding desired traits.
I realized why so many people on this site dislike Major_Freedom when he praised the rationality and intellect of Dr. Murphy when he agreed with him and ridiculed and insulted his intelligence when he disagreed with him.
That’s false. I don’t always agree with his economic arguments (see “saving”, and liquidity preference theory of interest as examples) but I always find him to be rational and intelligent (from my perspective) in the field of economics. So my disagreeing with him there isn’t leading me to say what I say when he discusses religion.
Nice straw man though. And who pray tell are you referring to when you say “so many people on this site” dislike me, and why in the world should it matter to me what they think anyway? I am anonymous on this site. I am not here for any reason other than ideas.
Oh, my fault. Major_Freedom only ridicules and insults Dr. Murphy when it comes to religion. I should have been more clear on that for you.
Insults? Where did I insult Dr. Murphy?
Ridicule? Maybe, but anyone who advocates that people like me should be thrown into an infinity of torment and/or pain, should be able to take at least some ridicule. I mean, religion, or more generally mysticism, is responsible for more social oppression and violence than any other main branch of ideology.
MF wrote: but anyone who advocates that people like me should be thrown into an infinity of torment and/or pain,
But MF, you advocate that if I put my hand in the garbage disposal, it will mangle my fingers. And I bet you also advocate that if I stick my head into a buzzsaw, I lose the ability to write blog posts. What the heck is wrong with you? What kind of sick value system do you have, advocating that those awful things happen to me?
Again, I know this seems inconceivable (literally) to you, but I actually think there is a God who has set up a system. I am trying to make sense of the system and explain why it’s not as offensive as it first appears. I am not “advocating” that anything happens to you.
And anyway, you are deliberately (once again) ignoring my position. I am saying that being with God is paradise, and so being without him in contrast is “hell.” You are mad that my magical man in the sky isn’t forcing you to spend eternity with him?
But MF, you advocate that if I put my hand in the garbage disposal, it will mangle my fingers. And I bet you also advocate that if I stick my head into a buzzsaw, I lose the ability to write blog posts. What the heck is wrong with you? What kind of sick value system do you have, advocating that those awful things happen to me?
Those analogies are no good, because the concepts (garbage disposal, buzzsaw) are not beliefs, but physical objects. They will have these disastrous affects whether you believe it or not.
If I said that I think you’re gong to experience pain by doing the above, it is not based on judging your beliefs, it is based on the physicality of your body and how it would react to those objects.
What you think will happen to atheists is merely a function of their beliefs. That means it is not a judgment based on observation of objects and how they react with human flesh, but an advocacy that people experience infinite torment merely by virtue of their beliefs.
You’re hiding that advocacy behind God’s skirt. They are your ideas. You getting your fingers mangled in a garbage disposal would happen whether either of us believes it or not.
Just like racist and homophobe Christians hide behind God’s skirt in wishing pain and torment on certain races and people of certain sexual preference, so too do other Christians hide behind God’s skirt to mask their desire for infinite torment on atheists.
The claim that you’re just relaying God’s beliefs is an illusion. You are relaying your own beliefs. it’s all in your head. The garbage disposal and your hand is not all in my head.
Again, I know this seems inconceivable (literally) to you, but I actually think there is a God who has set up a system. I am trying to make sense of the system and explain why it’s not as offensive as it first appears. I am not “advocating” that anything happens to you.
I don’t believe you and I reject all your claims that it’s not as offensive as it really is. It’s beyond the first impressions that the horrors of the bible really come out.
I am convinced that you’re not actually trying to find out how the system of God works. You’re trying to find out how your own spirit works, i.e. how your own mind works, whether you accept this or not.
And anyway, you are deliberately (once again) ignoring my position. I am saying that being with God is paradise, and so being without him in contrast is “hell.”
???
I wasn’t actually ignoring that position of yours. I know what it is. I even addressed it more than once in this thread. It is what I am actually referring to when I say you’re advocating for infinite torment on atheists.
You are mad that my magical man in the sky isn’t forcing you to spend eternity with him?
No, I’m mad that you can actually have the belief that I should be forced to an existence of infinite torment for the sole reason that I don’t believe in the same magical man in the sky concept as you.
Just look at what you are saying. You are actually saying that solely because of my thoughts, that last less than a decade, a blink relative to cosmic time scales, that I nevertheless ought to experience torment for eternity. You may think you’re only relaying God’s message, but because you accept it, it becomes your morality too.
I mean, what if you followed the old testament, and you started killing people who worked on Sundays, and brides who aren’t virgins on their wedding day? I would still claim you are an advocate of that morality, despite your claims that you’re only relaying God’s will, and so if I have a problem with it, then I should take it up with him somehow (which is really your own mind still).
I don’t think you fully appreciate just what kind of a morality you are adopting when you take on this ancient superstitious stuff. It’s fully in your mind and so from my perspective, I see someone’s inner principles wishing me infinite torment, even if they make an excuse that it’s just God telling them that.
You can settle this by telling me and every other atheist once and for all that you think we will not experience infinite torment merely by virtue of our beliefs. If you can’t find yourself to do that, then it’s your own choice and your own values calling for infinite torment.
If you truly believe that God gave you the power of choice, then why not choose to reject not only the OT nonsense, but the infinite torment for atheists part as well? Clearly you think you’re still going to heaven even though you’re choosing to refuse to do what the OT God commanded. Can you believe in God and think there will be no infinite torment on atheists? It’s kind of a drag, you know? Here I am talking with someone, and in their minds they’re imagining me experiencing an infinite torment for eternity solely because I won’t believe in a certain concept that isn’t making me going out and kill people, and yet you’re imagining that those who do kill people and yet do believe in a certain concept, will have infinite bliss.
PLEASE find it in your logical mind to see the utter nonsense of this, and that your mind should be given far more respect.
MF I just want to continually point this out, because presumably there are some people who are still following these comments and maybe they want reproducible evidence of how you continually assume your conclusion:
You’re hiding that advocacy behind God’s skirt. They are your ideas. You getting your fingers mangled in a garbage disposal would happen whether either of us believes it or not.
MF, no, you are totally wrong. Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that God exists, and that if you deny his existence (and indeed do so smugly and with disdain for those trying to spread His message of peace and hope to all) then you go to hell. Then–assuming for the sake of argument that that initial premise is true–that bad consequence is going to happen to you, whether you believe it or I believe it. It is not a result of “my belief,” it is result of being reality…just like my fingers get mangled whether you or I “believe in” garbage disposals.
In the above quote, you are showing once again that when you debate me, you use arguments that work if you are right, and DO NOT WORK if I am right. Since the purpose of our debate is to figure out who is right, that’s a useless strategy.
Again, reproducible evidence that it is pointless to debate you on this stuff.
“But MF, you advocate that if I put my hand in the garbage disposal, it will mangle my fingers. And I bet you also advocate that if I stick my head into a buzzsaw, I lose the ability to write blog posts.”
This analogy is too convenient for you. Your god is not an inanimate object blindly obeying the laws of nature. It has the choice to either punish or reward, to forgive people or to put their heads in the buzz saw, so to speak.
You’ve made it clear what you think will happen to MF and the rest of us sinners, but I think what MF is trying to get at is the fact that you APPROVE of your god’s freely made choice.
Your god could have chosen to forgive everyone, but it did not. Would you prefer a scenario in which MF did not suffer for eternity?
Since you describe your god as “good” and “just”, though, you must see eternal punishment for finite “transgressions” as also good and just.
If that’s the case, it says a lot about your views on morality.
You’re hiding that advocacy behind God’s skirt. They are your ideas. You getting your fingers mangled in a garbage disposal would happen whether either of us believes it or not.
MF, no, you are totally wrong.
Because I don’t believe in God, right?
Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that God exists, and that if you deny his existence (and indeed do so smugly and with disdain for those trying to spread His message of peace and hope to all) then you go to hell.
God’s actual message is one of extreme, brutal violence, and infinite torment, but anyway…
Then–assuming for the sake of argument that that initial premise is true–that bad consequence is going to happen to you, whether you believe it or I believe it. It is not a result of “my belief,” it is result of being reality…just like my fingers get mangled whether you or I “believe in” garbage disposals.
So assuming that your belief is no longer just a belief, but is representative of reality, and thing to focus on is not your belief, but rather the thing you’re claiming is true.
This is nuts.
Every time you are saying “let’s assume”, all you’re doing is telling me your BELIEFS. That’s what assumptions are. It is in fact a result of your beliefs that you approve of atheists experiencing an infinite of torment.
You can’t say “it’s not my belief that I assume.” You can’t say “It’s not my belief that I approve of you experiencing an infinite of torment, because if we assume, i.e. if we BELIEVE, that God exists, then it’s his doing, and has nothing to do with my beliefs.”
It IS your beliefs. The fact that you are forced to start with “If we assume for the sake of argument that God exists” is proof that it is your belief.
If you started with a foundation that does not presuppose your conclusion true and does not presuppose my conclusion true, which is what I am doing, then you can’t tell me that my arguments only work if my conclusion is right and they don’t work if your conclusion is right.
You’re just proving to everyone that your belief in God is a way you view the world, it is a starting point. Please don’t pretend that you have made this your conclusion based on evidence. It is, again, a starting point for you, which is exactly why you can only argue your case by saying essentially (paraphrased) “Let’s be all open minded and objective and unbiased and disinterested, and oh, I don’t know, just for the sake of argument, just to get this ball rolling, let’s just start and stay with the assumption that God exists and that atheists are going to hell, and let’s see where that takes us.”
You’re trying to pull the wool over my eyes after you have already pulled it over your own eyes.
Why don’t you start with a different assumption, one that atheists and theists can agree on? If you say there is no starting point that atheist and theists can agree on, then you’d only be admitting that theism is an ad hoc way to view the world, and is not a rational conclusion made based on thinking and evidence.
In the above quote, you are showing once again that when you debate me, you use arguments that work if you are right, and DO NOT WORK if I am right. Since the purpose of our debate is to figure out who is right, that’s a useless strategy.
Oh please, it is quite clear that you’re not interested in trying to figure out who is right, because your starting point is that you are right. Your starting point is the conclusion that God exists. It’s what you and all other Christians are mentally compelled to do, because you view God as the beginning to all creation. You cannot help but start and stay with the conclusion you’re claiming to be all interested in finding out through discussion. But all you’re doing is insisting that everyone else, including atheists, start and stay with your a priori way of viewing the world, that is, we all have to assume you’re right at the outset.
Again, reproducible evidence that it is pointless to debate you on this stuff.
This is crazy. You’re actually telling me that my arguments don’t work if we assume at the outset that I am wrong you are right!
Really?
You initially, smugly, assumed that you are right that God exists. You initially, smugly, assumed that I can only accept or deny God’s existence, in my case it’s “deny”. You initially, smugly and with disdain, assumed that atheists are going to experience infinite torment.
Well of course if you start with the assumption that you are totally right and I am totally wrong, then we cannot get anywhere else other than me being wrong and you being right, no matter how many great, profound, deep, and powerful your logic is. It’s all just window dressing.
How in the world can you start with the assumption that your conclusion is correct, when that is the very conclusion ultimately being debated? You are engaging in the mother of all question begging.
The correct starting point is “I don’t know which particular conclusion is right, so let’s start with what we do know is right that everyone can agree on, and then we can think and argue about it and determine which path forward is the right one, and then we can settle on a conclusion.”
We will never come to a conclusion if you refuse to start with a foundation that is NOT your very conclusion. Through your misrepresenting of your actual position, you are declaring that we’re all supposed to be striving towards a conclusion without bias, and yet you are maximally biased in starting with the conclusion that God exists!
You see, as an atheist, I know of a foundation that we can all agree on, theists and atheists alike, and unlike you it’s not my conclusion. Can you do that? Can you start with a foundation that atheists and theists alike can agree on that doesn’t contain the conclusions “God exists” or “God does not exist”?
Just look above at how you prefaced your post. You started with the assumption that God exists, that I can only accept or deny it, and that I am going to spend infinite in torment. How in the heck can that be an invitation for atheists to debate you? It would be like me asking you to debate me given the starting assumption that God does not exist. How is that fair?
Then look at the way you are viewing my arguments: “They don’t work if I am right.” Holy canoli, you mean assuming your conclusion is right, it follows that my arguments are wrong! Get out!
You have to go further back than that and start with a foundation we both can agree on as true, that says nothing specific about God. Is that even possible for you? All I see is stuff like “Let’s start with the foundation that God exists.”
“I realized God was a lie after a voice in my head told me God was a lie, and after I didn’t see a wooden toy that I should have seen, and after I couldn’t figure out why an object fell from the shelf, and after I just so happened to have turned to the right page in The Origin of Species after thinking about humans altering the appearance of pigeons through selectively breeding desired traits.”
and
“I am not here for any reason other than ideas.”
Bob wrote:
“About 2 days ago, I realized it was pointless to argue about religion with Major Freedom.”
I have no opinion on the above, but it sounds suspiciously similar to what you wrote to me:
“I think we can stop here, Anonymouse.”
Is your new debating strategy to stop debating? It’s odd that you want to stop before you’ve even started:
We’re still waiting to find out if you think the sun can simultaneously dance and not dance. We’re still waiting for your comments on non-Christian paranormal experiences, the possibility that you’re living in the matrix or have been tricked by your brain, a ghost, or the devil, and your opinion on the relevance (or lack thereof) of childhood imaginary friends… which brings up another question:
Did you have one?
“We’re still waiting to find out if you think the sun can simultaneously dance and not dance.”
We are of course talking about a vision. It is certainly possible for one set of people to see what others do not. Given the numbers involved and the circumstances, the “fluke of human psychology” explanation is a little flimsy. If you are interested in more “objective” phenomena, see Craig S. Keener’s book on miracles.
“We’re still waiting for your comments on non-Christian paranormal experiences.”
How are “non-Christian paranormal experiences” relevant? Since the earliest days of the church, Christians have believed that such experiences occasionally take place.
“We are of course talking about a vision.”
OK, so you’re saying that the sun didn’t really dance.
“It is certainly possible for one set of people to see what others do not. Given the numbers involved and the circumstances, the ‘fluke of human psychology’ explanation is a little flimsy.”
So, the question is, why did so many people think they saw something that did not in fact happen? Notice how that is a much less compelling question than “Why did the sun dance around in the sky?”.
We’ve moved from trying to explain an aberration in the sun’s motion (that would appear to defy physics) to explaining an occurrence of mass misperception. Of course, misperception is a familiar human tendency, so we’re dealing with what is perhaps an exceptional case of a very common phenomenon.
Maybe it was a hoax, or maybe their retinas got fried by staring at the sun for an hour. I would take the advice of the Catholic church and rule out all possible natural explanations first before accepting something as a miracle.
“If you are interested in more ‘objective’ phenomena, see Craig S. Keener’s book on miracles.”
I like how you put “objective” in quotes 🙂
“How are ‘non-Christian paranormal experiences’ relevant?”
Bob’s reasoning from his “Why I Know There Is a God” post is essentially as follows: His paranormal experiences are in a special class of evidence that allow him to KNOW there is a god.
Sounds intriguing at first, but his argument turns out to prove far too much, because now we can also “know” that dolphins are the guardians of the planet and their spirits travel to Arizona to participate in expensive weekend workshops.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiPprH7tEi8
And, what if someone has a paranormal experience that directly contradicts the tenets of Christianity? What implications does that have for Bob’s experiences? What if someone prays to a golden calf and their prayers are answered? What if the ghost of Elvis tells someone that the meek won’t inherit the earth? What if Jesus appears and says “I’m just a figment of your imagination”?
To be even more explicit:
Bob admitted that the argument he presented in his “Why I Know There Is a God” post would not necessarily convince others (since they didn’t have direct access to his evidence), but my point is that his argument shouldn’t even convince HIM, because the exact same argument could be used to prove all kinds of things he totally disagrees with.
I still haven’t heard why some “miracles” benefit people who have first world problems, like Dr. Murphy, and gloss over starving impoverished children. Surely millions have perished praying to god for the tiniest bit of salvation.
It’s almost as if miracles were entirely random, which is what you would expect from instrumental error.
Here, do you think that the number of *perceived* miracles would increase or decrease given the following:
1) Less knowledge of psychological biases
2) Less knowledge of physics
3) More people on earth
4) More daily randomness
I think people would perceive more miracles on all counts for fairly obvious reasons. So, I not only expect there to be claims of miraculous events, I expect a large portion of them to be mundane. That’s not to say that a miracle *can’t* happen, but it is to say that reports of miracles are pedestrian.
Nice. I still contend that atheists demonstrate just as much, maybe more, faith than believers. There is no positive proof that God does not exist.
Christians have a million things they don’t believe in. Atheists have a million-and-one things they don’t believe in. Why does the standard for non-belief get so much higher when talking about god?
>Don’t believe in Uniclams
>Claim Uniclams don’t exist
LKSJFlkajsflk so much faith.
(I had originally written unicorns, but then I remembered some christians do believe in unicorns because the bible says they exist(ed).)
But atheists have faith in reason and science. It´s about quality, not quantity of faith.
Atheists don’t need an alternative to theology to be atheists. You can just be “ignorant” of everything. Nihilism what?
And you can’t have “faith” in reason. It is what it is. Propositions are made up of symbols and when they all agree and imply each other, then we call that proposition “true”. 2+2=4, for example, is entirely true because of the way those symbols are defined. That’s all there is to it.
The scientific method becomes infinitely less dogmatic viewed through the lens of reason. It is designed to study regular, reproducible phenomena. The underlying assumption is that the universe behaves according to the same rules between trials. And this assumption cannot be tested without assuming that the universe itself behaves according to one set of rules, and so on and so forth.
But is your only complaint that atheists don’t affix an asterisk to the end of their worldviews? “Man evolved millions of years ago***”
“*** Assuming that the laws of thermodynamics still held across time/space”
Because that’s a pretty weak complaint.
I don’t have faith in reason and science. Reason itself is inimical to faith.
Ok Jacques Hebert
Because I call for the executions of those who believe in God, right? /s
I’m not saying “executions”, but I’m not saying “not executions”…
You’re not saying a lot of things, like one of my passive aggressive ex-girlfriends.
There is no positive proof that God does not exist.
There is no positive proof that ANYTHING does not exist.
Are you saying that you believe that god COULD exist just you dont live your life on a day by day basis under the assumption that god exist??
No, I’m just saying that it is impossible to positively prove a negative.
One can indirectly prove a negative by directly proving a positive that makes the contra-negative an impossibility.
How God fits into this, for me, is realizing that if we are going to consider some thing, and whether it exists or not, it has to at least be coherent and meaningful, i.e. internally logically consistent. My position is that the concept of God doesn’t even pass this test. This is why belief in God leads to all sorts of logical absurdities. It starts by rejecting logic.
What are the logical absurdities that go with the concept of god?
Where to start!
The main one is that omniscience and omnipotence cannot coherently co-exist. It would require a being to both accept and reject its own knowledge, and to both have and not have certain knowledge.
Indeed, even the concept of omnipotence itself is incoherent. Any attempt by us to give a meaning to it, if it is going to be meaningful and coherent at all, will inevitably become a bounded concept of the form “this, and nothing else that contradicts it.” But as soon as we do that, we have introduced a limitation, and one of the attributes of omnipotence is “without limitation.”
In other words, omnipotence cannot make sense to us because we are compelled to pit creative ability versus performance.
The theist’s usual response is to say that God does have the power to change his mind, but just never exercises it. But a power that can’t be used, lest a contradiction arise to omniscience, isn’t even a power.
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able, nor willing? Then why call him God?” – Epicurus
Prov. 16:9, Proverbs 19:21 say that God, not man, is ultimately sovereign and has the free will, so the free will of man route cannot be used by the Christian to explain why evil exists in the world. Then there is the deeper issue of explaining WHY evil originated at all.
Murphy, this might interest you:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html
“Steven, for you, the first clue should have been the elegance, complexity, and sheer unpredictability of mathematics. There’s no reason for mathematics to be the way it is, except that I designed the structure of reality to be such, and endowed you with the logical faculties necessary to grasp some of its properties. Some of your brothers recognized My fingerprints”
Uh Lord? Doesn’t that beg the question of who designed you?
I think John T. Kennedy is a good argument for atheism.