Do you choose to believe what you believe?

[the caracal kid]

Re: RE: Do you choose to believe what you believe?

dex,
what makes you "you" is the history of the past interactions.

Granted, but that's not what I was talking about either. I meant that there's no external supernatural agency (or an internal one either, for that matter) guiding my choices or defining my ethics, that I'm aware of.

I agree. In my philosophy there is nothing "supernatural" as everything that is a part of the "universe" is natural. There are many natural external forces/agencies defining your ethics even if to yourself it does not appear so. Very much of the personal perspective is a persistant illusion.

 

[jimmoyer]

Hate to keep pounding a dead horse.

Major Premise:
We assume a God by definition is supernatural.

Minor Premise:
Nature is not supernatural, as we learn its workings.

Conclusion:
Therefore there can be no God.

It's this kind of syllogism in our logic makes me
always suspect our reasoning.

The fact that we've learned throughout history
how there are reasonable explanations for the
phenomena we witness in no way disprove or
prove a God that fits any definition, except that
of infinity, except that of mysteries unsolved, and
when such mysteries are solved, a new one takes
its place.

 

[the caracal kid]

also, jim, remeber that "we" make the gods.

lets say something created the universe. would you call it a god? i would not.

it is a "god" to you if you declare it a "god", be that "a conscious universe" or a separate anthropmorphic entity.

 

[jimmoyer]

All of what you say makes sense depending on your
definition of God.

We're the ones who have to come up with a definition.

Or not.

Let's say a God does exist. Then the cat and mouse
game ensues on whether this God fits our definition.

And why does this subject keep coming up?

Because for every mystery we solve, a new puzzle
exposes itself for our observation.

Which in turn is another cat and mouse game in
Science.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Re: RE: Do you choose to believe what you believe?

Major Premise:
We assume a God by definition is supernatural.

Minor Premise:
Nature is not supernatural, as we learn its workings.

Conclusion:
Therefore there can be no God.

You might also conclude that God therefore must be separate and distinct from nature, which is what the first premise says, God is above nature. Begging the question again. It's also pretty much the official view of the major monotheisms.

Logic and reason will never prove or disprove the existence of God, because it's a metaphysical claim with no propositional content. Failing some dramatic and unmistakeable demonstration of his presence, the best we can do is argue probabilities. I know of people who claim to have seen such demonstrations, but there's always a more prosaic explanation than the ones they offer. We can never prove God doesn't exist, and only he can prove he does. He hasn't.

 

[the caracal kid]

the idea of separation is one of the great fallacies of humanity.

if there is a "devine", it is within everything.

another way of putting it wrt the abrahamics is that the infinite does not interact with the finite.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Re: RE: Do you choose to believe what you believe?

if there is a "devine", it is within everything.

There is a "devine." Grant Devine, former incompetent premier of Saskatchewan... Sorry, couldn't resist. :wink:

More seriously, I don't understand what you mean by the divine being within everything, or that the infinite and the finite don't interact, or that separation is a fallacy. Separation of what from what? From the context I'd take you to be referring to the infinite and the finite, but you clearly state they don't interact, which means the separation is not a fallacy, but a true statement. But it's not a true statement. We can and do interact with the infinite (I assume you'll grant that we are finite); there's a well developed mathematics of transfinite numbers that even distinguishes several orders of infinity. The infinity of real numbers, for instance, is infinitely greater than the infinity of the integers. If that statement isn't an example of me interacting with the infinite, what is it? I suppose it'd depend on what you mean by "interact," but I can do some math with infinite numbers, which seems like an interaction to me.

Or do you mean the divine is not separate from the mundane? That too would be consistent with what you wrote. Maybe so, but that's still a metaphysical hypothesis that no amount of argument or evidence will ever be able to substantiate, so I don't see the point of it.

 

[jimmoyer]

...and only he can prove he(GOD) does. He hasn't.
----------------------Dexter Sinister--------------------------

How do you know "he" hasn't ?

This Still depends on your definition of what God is
and what God should do to prove it to you.

I think despite disavowing the ineptness of any
logical proof either way, you still lean to the idea
that there is no God because of your observations,
or rather, more because of the logic IN your observations.

 

[jimmoyer]

...and only he can prove he(GOD) does. He hasn't.
----------------------Dexter Sinister--------------------------

Here's another way of putting your thought in
a syllogism hiding behind it all:

Major Premise:
1. God is all-knowing.
2. God then knows the kind of proof man seeks.
3. God does not offer it, therefore God doesn't exist.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Re: RE: Do you choose to believe what you believe?

... you still lean to the idea
that there is no God because of your observations,
or rather, more because of the logic IN your observations.

Of course I do, I thought that was perfectly clear.

1. God is all-knowing.
2. God then knows the kind of proof man seeks.
3. God does not offer it, therefore God doesn't exist.

That conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. Maybe he just chooses not to offer it for inscrutable reasons of his own. If he's all -knowing and all-powerful, which is usually how he's understood by the monotheisms, he certainly *could* offer it. I don't know that he hasn't, I can only claim he hasn't offered it in any way that convinces me. Isn't the essence of faith that proof isn't required? That's the leap I can't make, if we understand faith to mean belief in the absence of or contrary to evidence.

 

[jimmoyer]

1. God knows what proof man desires
2. God certainly could do this, but doesn't do this
3. Why should I believe in God ?

The above certainly wasn't a syllogism, but rather
just playing back what you say, Dexter. You yourself
saw this 3-step logic is faulty when you said,

"That conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. Maybe he just chooses not to offer it for inscrutable reasons of his own. "

So you go onto reason, "If he's all -knowing and all-powerful, which is usually how he's understood by the monotheisms, he certainly *could* offer it. I don't know that he hasn't, I can only claim he hasn't offered it in any way that convinces me."

So that above statement can lead to another
presumption:

1. Inventors little know ALL the ramifications of their creation.
2. God is an inventor.
3. Therefore God is not omniscient.

I don't wish you to believe or have faith,
I just want to put the hard test to your reasoning
on the matter.

Your reasoning is no better nor worse than those
who do see reasons to believe.

In fact most agnostic and atheistic logic corresponds
to most religious logic, all of which is inept at this
job.

This is why agnostics and atheists take a leap of faith
like religion does. Both are inept at the logic of proof
or disproof. Both decide to believe what they believe.

 

[the caracal kid]

dex,

to clarify,

if there is a "divinity" to the universe, it exists as a product of everything in the universe.

the separation fallacy is the idea that there is some creator separate from the universe. Rather, the universe is a self-creating system composed of multiple levels of smaller systems. Within any system there is creation. The creation is within the universe itself, not outside of it. If there are "powers" to be considered, they are all equal in importance, since a loss of one would change the structure of our universe, and thus us (working on the assumption that this current environment is more desired than another).

infinite and finite: an infinite entity that encompases everything must therefore have everything be a part of itself. Something can not be "everything" and yet separate, or else it is not everything (it is not what it is separated from).

does that make sense?

 

[jimmoyer]

Caracal kid, that makes perfect sense.

Something indeed cannot be everything, yet be
separate.

 

[Outta here]

Caracal, you are doing a much better job explaining this concept than I bungled...

I particularly like the conciseness of this:

if there is a "divinity" to the universe, it exists as a product of everything in the universe

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Re: RE: Do you choose to believe what you believe?

if there is a "divinity" to the universe, it exists as a product of everything in the universe.

No, I don't think I buy that. It must exist as part of the universe if it's going to have any effect on it, but it needn't be a product of it. It might be the other way around. Maybe the divinity pre-existed and built the universe around itself.

the separation fallacy is the idea that there is some creator separate from the universe.

Yes, I'll buy that, it's more or less what I just wrote.

Within any system there is creation.

No, I don't buy that, though it'd depend strictly on how you define a system.

The creation is within the universe itself, not outside of it.

Yes, I'll buy that too.

If there are "powers" to be considered, they are all equal in importance, since a loss of one would change the structure of our universe

You've lost me on this one. I'd agree that the loss of one would change things, but it doesn't follow that they must all be of equal importance.

infinite and finite: an infinite entity that encompases everything must therefore have everything be a part of itself. Something can not be "everything" and yet separate, or else it is not everything

There are infinite entities--if you'll agree that a set is an entity--that don't encompass everything, only the infinite number of things that meet the criteria for membership in the set. The number of integers is infinite, so is the number of odd integers, and the number of even integers, and the number is the same in all three cases. "An infinite entity that encompasses everything" is a very particular case, of which only one is conceivable. This is a tautology: everything is everything.

does that make sense?

Mostly... I think we're teetering on the edge of some serious semantic difficulties though.

 

[the caracal kid]

systems as strictly defined within systems theory.

wrt your set analogy, each set while infinite is still a subset of a field. There is something more encompassing. I was refering only to an all encompassing set in this analogy.

Sorry for not being precise in my methods today.

 

[jimmoyer]

Atheists take a leap of faith
like religion does. Both are inept at the logic of proof
or disproof. Both decide to believe what they believe.

Agnostics, a word coined by Thomas Henry Huxley
in 1869, are no better nor worse than those above,
especially and most especially if they hold themselves
higher than the gladiators in the arena.

 

[Naci_Sey]

Re: RE: Do you choose to believe what you believe?

People have a basic human need to believe in something greater than themselves... This may explain the apperant replacement of faith in religions with a faith in government and political ideologies. I don't know which is the more believable.

First, hello everyone; I'm a newbie to the Board.

iamcanadian (me too), I have to disagree. First, I feel no need to believe in some higher power, whether that be a supreme being or an ideology. I certainly have no faith in govt. As to political ideologies, people will favour one more than another, but ideologies are only worth having adherents if they guide said adherents in shaping reality accordingly. I have no more blind faith in ideologies than I do in anything else.

 

[FiveParadox]

Welcome to CC.net!

Hey there, Naci_Sey! Welcome to Canadian Content!

If you have any questions, or if you ever need assistance, I would be happy to assist in whatever way I can through private messages. Of course, you can contact one of our amazing Administrators or Moderators for whatever reasons may arise — there is an awesome, dedicated staff working behind the scenes of this place. I am happy to see you jumping right into things, and I hope to see you around the forums!


Yours sincerely,

Christopher Girodat
(a.k.a., FiveParadox)

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Re: RE: Do you choose to believe what you believe?

Atheists take a leap of faith like religion does.

Nonsense. There's no faith involved in atheism, it's an absence of faith, at least in a religious sense. I could--and do--say I have faith in logic, reason, and the methods of science, but that's evidence-based and thus a different meaning of the word. If you're going to equate belief that the sun will rise in the morning to belief in a deity, as you've implicitly done, you've trivialized both ideas and made the logical error of equating different meanings of a word. Logic, reason, and the methods of science are the only reliable way we've ever found for testing the truth content of ideas, and the quality of your life, from the medical knowledge that keeps you well to the technology that enables us to chat this way, demonstrates that they've been spectacularly successful at improving things in ways no religion ever has, or could.