What would it take for you?

[Christian]

jacopo said:

So, until I see something concrete, I remain an atheist.

I quote this from another thread. It made the wonder: what would it take for you to believe in God? Or any sort of Creator, or purpose or design or meaning to our existence?

I am curious--what would it take?

I think some of the best advice anyone ever gave me was: "You will know a tree by its fruits." I know that my faith is probably the single largest motivating force in my life, and it is why I am just in awe every day I live. It has also made me a much nicer and more genuinely caring person; and it has allowed me to be utterly satisfied and content in a way that I could never be, if I had not pursued a connection to a higher power. Because of my beliefs, I can honestly say that I think nothing will ever bring me to despair and hopelessness; and, if circumstances conspire to bring me to that state, I will be wrong to despair.

You put faith in a lot of things outside religion... what is so objectionable about supposing there is a God? And what would it take for you to believe He exists?

I hope my questions don't offend.

[droskey]

Well, I think that god appearing before me and everyone else and declaring that he is in fact god would be a start. That way, I could communicate with my fellow human beings and be sure that I wasn't hallucinating.

Or perhaps god could tell me he is god and then communicate winning lottery numbers to me, three times.

Or maybe, he could implant a very long number in my head and tell me to find a person in Bankok that is obsessed with the exact same number.

But, truthfully, god could cause me to believe just by eliminating my doubt.

Christian

You put faith in a lot of things outside religion...

No I don't. This is a common bit of christian "slight of hand". You see, the word faith can have several different definitions. However, it cannot have all of these definitions at once. Since I am generally tired of having this sort of discussion, I'll nip it in the bud here. Faith can mean:
1.) Belief in something without sufficient evidence or even in light of contradicting evidence.
2.) Commonly used in place of "a set of religious beliefs."
3.) Trust. (I have faith that he will do the honest thing.)
4.) Belief. However, for precision if one means "belief", one ought to use the word "belief".

So, belief in certain scientific theories does not constitute 1, 2 or 3. Also, to be precise we should say something like "I believe in the theory of gravitation" rather than "I have faith in the theory of gravitaion". To use the different meanings of "faith" interchangably without drawing attention to the variation in meaning is slightly dishonest.

Christian

what is so objectionable about supposing there is a God?

Well, if you just mean a generic god, I suppose that the only thing that is distastful to me is that we are supposing that one more thing exists without reasonable evidence to presume that it does in fact exist. I'm fond of Occam's Razor. What's so objectionable about supposing that God does not exist?

[Christian]

jacopo said:

Well, I think that god appearing before me and everyone else and declaring that he is in fact god would be a start. That way, I could communicate with my fellow human beings and be sure that I wasn't hallucinating.

Or perhaps god could tell me he is god and then communicate winning lottery numbers to me, three times.

Or maybe, he could implant a very long number in my head and tell me to find a person in Bankok that is obsessed with the exact same number.

But, truthfully, god could cause me to believe just by eliminating my doubt.

Christian
No I don't. This is a common bit of christian "slight of hand". You see, the word faith can have several different definitions. However, it cannot have all of these definitions at once. Since I am generally tired of having this sort of discussion, I'll nip it in the bud here. Faith can mean:
1.) Belief in something without sufficient evidence or even in light of contradicting evidence.
2.) Commonly used in place of "a set of religious beliefs."
3.) Trust. (I have faith that he will do the honest thing.)
4.) Belief. However, for precision if one means "belief", one ought to use the word "belief".

So, belief in certain scientific theories does not constitute 1, 2 or 3. Also, to be precise we should say something like "I believe in the theory of gravitation" rather than "I have faith in the theory of gravitaion". To use the different meanings of "faith" interchangably without drawing attention to the variation in meaning is slightly dishonest.

Christian
Well, if you just mean a generic god, I suppose that the only thing that is distastful to me is that we are supposing that one more thing exists without reasonable evidence to presume that it does in fact exist. I'm fond of Occam's Razor. What's so objectionable about supposing that God does not exist?

You make good points, and I was wrong to use the word "faith" with such broad meaning, when in fact in this context it has a rather particular meaning.

However, Occam's Razor suggests that the universe was created, and was designed. Ask any physicist what the chances are of our universe assembling itself into the form it has, and whether any other configuration could possibly support life. An anthropocentric case is thus made that because of the ridiculously small chance of things turning out the way they did, Occam's Razor points to the simplest explanation: design.

However, I do not subscribe to much intelligent design stuff, so I don't want to get embroiled in a discussion about it. I was merely pointing out that Occam's Razor can be used differently depending on your data.

[necroshine]

However, Occam's Razor suggests that the universe was created, and was designed. Ask any physicist what the chances are of our universe assembling itself into the form it has, and whether any other configuration could possibly support life. An anthropocentric case is thus made that because of the ridiculously small chance of things turning out the way they did, Occam's Razor points to the simplest explanation: design.

See you said this. so you made my fingers start jumping in getting to the keyboard. But then you said

However, I do not subscribe to much intelligent design stuff, so I don't want to get embroiled in a discussion about it. I was merely pointing out that Occam's Razor can be used differently depending on your data.

Why did you say that? you took the same ol wind out of my sails.
But I have to admit you gave me something new.
If you do not believe in intelligent design then why do you believe in god? That is usually the cut off point of the atheist and religious. Are you just holding out belief just in case there is a god? That is what I am getting from you.

But to say something about why we are here and all the different ways the universe can be made. Think about one thing.
We have to be somewhere. That place would have to be someplace that we can exist. So here we are. We can not be in the other place. To add to this we do not have any idea how many other universes exist. There could be an uncountable number of them.

[necroshine]

And to answer your question. All I want is to hear from god ol dad. Let me know you care. Is that asking too much? I have yet to hear from him.

[Filter]

Christian said:

I quote this from another thread. It made the wonder: what would it take for you to believe in God? Or any sort of Creator, or purpose or design or meaning to our existence?

I am curious--what would it take?

For starters, for all persons of faith to believe in the same God(s) and agree on one unifying doctrine.

This would not make me believe, but would perk my curiosity a whole bunch.

[solidsquid]

Christian said:

However, Occam's Razor suggests that the universe was created, and was designed.

Occam's Razor doesn't suggest anything like that. It is simply a logical tool, also known as the principle of parsimony. It states:

one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything

As it applies to the discussion at hand:

In the philosophy of religion Occam's Razor is sometimes used to challenge arguments for the existence of God. None of these applications has been considered definitive because the competing assumptions are not (and perhaps cannot be) precisely defined. Also, it should be added that the principle is only a guide to the best theory based on current knowledge, not to the "truth."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor

That would implicate modern cosmological theories as the correct route on current knowledge, not the ridiculous assertions of the patently NON-scientific theory of ID.

Ask any physicist what the chances are of our universe assembling itself into the form it has, and whether any other configuration could possibly support life.

I already have, he said, "...I can't believe people say this stuff..." and laughed.

An anthropocentric case is thus made that because of the ridiculously small chance of things turning out the way they did, Occam's Razor points to the simplest explanation: design.

Probability as compared to what other measure? The traits of the universe and events made it possible for life to emerge upon this planet. What's the probability of flipping a coin and it landing on it's side and not a face? Not likely, but I've seen it happen more than once.

Most probability statistics regarding such are so unbelievably flawed in the fact that not all the variables can be accounted for. This leads to starting with assumptions and when dealing with universal stats, those assumptions turn into very large deviances on such as scale. Because of the ambiguity and different assumptions and starting points, both sides of the debate will have calculations affirming their argument.

However, I do not subscribe to much intelligent design stuff, so I don't want to get embroiled in a discussion about it. I was merely pointing out that Occam's Razor can be used differently depending on your data.

But didn't you just say it's the most likely scenario due to the principle? So, you don't subscribe to it and thereby implying that you somehow don't consider the principle of parsimony valid in that respect? Hmmm...

[Christian]

one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything

I concede my point. On further thought, arguments of probability have no basis when we have no comparisons, and cannot determine a cause for an effect. I was just getting dreamy-eyed because it is finals week and I have been reading with interest a lot of physics, which is really miraculous stuff.

So, as you said, Occam's Razor has little to say here. The clause "beyond what is necessary" is important, however. You stated that Occam's Razor suggested to you that there is no value in considering a Creator; however, you have not explained how all this came to existence, so it seems to me that it isn't time to employ the philosophical tool on any grounds yet. Unless there are two competing genuine explanations for a phenomenon, one of which has extraneous parts, Occam's Razor is useless. Do you agree?

[Christian]

Filter said:

For starters, for all persons of faith to believe in the same God(s) and agree on one unifying doctrine.

This would not make me believe, but would perk my curiosity a whole bunch.

I don't think that would be possible for Satanists and Christians, if you include such a diversity of faith. But, excluding the very few, I think that the vast majority of faiths share at least one unifying doctrine: that humans should be humble before, or diminish themselves in comparison too, something.

[solidsquid]

Christian said:

I concede my point. On further thought, arguments of probability have no basis when we have no comparisons, and cannot determine a cause for an effect. I was just getting dreamy-eyed because it is finals week and I have been reading with interest a lot of physics, which is really miraculous stuff.

So, as you said, Occam's Razor has little to say here. The clause "beyond what is necessary" is important, however. You stated that Occam's Razor suggested to you that there is no value in considering a Creator; however, you have not explained how all this came to existence, so it seems to me that it isn't time to employ the philosophical tool on any grounds yet. Unless there are two competing genuine explanations for a phenomenon, one of which has extraneous parts, Occam's Razor is useless. Do you agree?

Now you're getting my point, somewhat. The principle relies on current knowledge and that will change as knowledge is accrued. Centuries ago, the biblical idea (based on current knowledge at that time) was the most parsimonious route, now it is not.

[droskey]

Jacopo

You make good points, and I was wrong to use the word "faith" with such broad meaning, when in fact in this context it has a rather particular meaning.

Good. Precision is of utmost importance in these sorts of discussions.

I don't really have anything to add regarding Occam's Razor other than that I generally agree with what solidsquid has said. When I say that starting with the assumption of no creator is more parsimonious than assuming a creator, I am think about the issue in the following way. The universe is indeed complex and life as we know it requires specialized environments to exist. These environments are probably relatively rare. However, we don't really know what all the variables are. For instance, what is necessary for life in general (not just as we know it) to exist. I can't even speculate on this (although there are those who do)? Is it really improbable for life to exist? I don't know these answers. So I really don't have a need for asking why does life exist? Maybe it was inevitable.

Even if I do say that the universe was created, I am just pushing the question off onto something else (i.e. the creator). Where did the creator come from? Why do I have to assume that the "creator" is intelligent?

[Filter]

Christian said:

I don't think that would be possible for Satanists and Christians, if you include such a diversity of faith. But, excluding the very few, I think that the vast majority of faiths share at least one unifying doctrine: that humans should be humble before, or diminish themselves in comparison too, something.

It doesn't sound to me like your unifying doctrine would get either a Christian or a Muslim into heaven.

[necroshine]

Filter said:

It doesn't sound to me like your unifying doctrine would get either a Christian or a Muslim into heaven.

filter, christian thinks muslims will get into heaven and so will christians, and jews and anyone else who believes in any god.
at least that is my understanding of him.
if i'm wrong please let me know. so far that is what i am getting from you. the only people who is going to hell is us evil athiests.

[Christian]

Filter said:

It doesn't sound to me like your unifying doctrine would get either a Christian or a Muslim into heaven.

My reply ("the vast majority of faiths share at least one unifying doctrine: that humans should be humble before, or diminish themselves in comparison too, something") was in response to this:


on Mar 14th, 2005, 8:17pm, Filter wrote:

For starters, for all persons of faith to believe in the same God(s) and agree on one unifying doctrine.

This would not make me believe, but would perk my curiosity a whole bunch.

I'm sorry, but there is not really a common thread running through many religions, or even many people of the same religion, when it comes to the afterlife.

[Christian]

necroshine said:

filter, christian thinks muslims will get into heaven and so will christians, and jews and anyone else who believes in any god.
at least that is my understanding of him.
if i'm wrong please let me know. so far that is what i am getting from you. the only people who is going to hell is us evil athiests.

Will someone please tell me why atheists seem so preoccupied with the afterlife? It really doesn't matter much to me; this is true for a surprising number of Christians and people of other faiths. My search for God is absolutely relevant to my living life.

I do sympathize with your feelings. When I was in highschool, some very blockheaded Christians tried to convert me (I was agnostic) by threatening me with the horrible fate that would await me in the afterlife if I didn't become religious. It didn't work; it was several years until I became Christian on my own. But I did not reject God outright--I just surmised on my own that He would not want me to believe in Him out of fear, as that would be entirely a selfish motivation. I wouldn't be worshipping God for what He is; I would be worshipping God out of a fear of what He could do to me if I didn't--a feeling for which it is necessary to love myself, and out of which I could summon no love for God.
In order to feel comfortable with my relationship vis a vis God, I had to understand that He will not cast anyone out who sincerely wants to be with Him, and walk His path. And, he will not force anyone who rejects him to submit to His will. You ask, isn't it evil to give us free will, if we are then at liberty to reject God and be in misery because of our choice? I would say, no. How can free will exist, if we are not given choices? How can there be choices if there are no qualitative differences between their various outcomes?

This above all else: God does not force us away from Him. The choice is always OURS. Please do not blame your choices on God. This seems as difficult an idea as that of omnipotence; just as you must realize the full implications of omnipotence, you must realize the full implications of free will. Though at times you may be unable to believe, you will never be unable to search, earnestly and with all your heart, for God. And I GUARENTEE you that such a search will yield results, so long as you do not give up.