The Fallacy of Biblical Stories, Part 8: God, the biggest fallacy of them all?

There could be a god. Just not the one you think or imagine. Either way, I remain unconvinced without evidence.

But Gordy, if there isn't a god, who's going to bless The United States of America?

What amuses me is that there are people around here who worship Trump. 

By the way, Devil's Advocate was a pretty good movie - Pacino sure fit the image.  "My favourite sin - vanity."

Very good movie.

He made a good point about vanity. One could consider it the root of all sin

But Gordy, if there isn't a god, who's going to bless The United States of America?

That's what we have Trump for. 

What amuses me is that there are people around here who worship Trump. 

The @ss kissing of Trump seems quite prevalent.

By the way, Devil's Advocate was a pretty good movie

Agreed

if there isn't a god, who's going to bless The United States of America?

"When about a third of the people saw that Jesus was so long in coming down from the mountain, they gathered around conservative Republicans and said, “Come, make us a god who will go before us. As for this fellow Jesus, who nobody's seen for 2000 years, we don’t know what has happened to him.”

²  The Republicans answered them, “Take off the gold earrings that your wives, your sons and your daughters are wearing, and bring them to me.” ³ So a third of the people took off their earrings and brought them to the Republicans. ⁴  They took what they handed them and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a golden fat man, fashioning him into a total tool. Then they said, “This is your god, conservative Christians, who brought you up out of liberal progressive secular rule!” - Exodus 32:1-4 (paraphrased)

Yeah, I've seen a picture of it.

That certainly seems to have some basis of truth.

He made a good point about vanity. One could consider it the root of all sin

I find it rather telling that the God of the bible is depicted with the same emotions and emotional failings as humans. That should raise a red flag about the veracity of God. It's as if God is the mirror of the ancient men writing about him, but with superpowers. 

I know, right? God is not human, so why does he display so many human emotions and fallibilities?

Exactly. One would think an omnipotent deity would be above such petty things. And yet, the bible depicts a God who is petty, vindictive, narcissistic, jealous, angry, ect.. All human characteristics. 

My favorite sin used to be vanity but vanity takes lots of work and is very expensive so switched over to gluttony and sloth. 

The rules are much easier and a new pair of underwear on occasion is my only clothing expense. 

My favorite sin used to be vanity but vanity takes lots of work and is very expensive so switched over to gluttony and sloth. 

I'll take lust, aka a normal human drive.  It activates automatically and is quite easy, and fun, to utilize

Uhh....why does Trumps' golden calf have utters? Is it a half-way transgender?

Well, we established elsewhere that for God to have made both man and woman in his image, he'd have to be intersex.  Makes sense that other gods created by man would be the same.

His followers gain their sustenance from sucking on his teats 4 at a time - better than just one at a time, don't you think?  Not everyone is like that guy who molested the gorilla. 

Well, we established elsewhere that for God to have made both man and woman in his image, he'd have to be intersex.

Hmm...I thought God made Man in his own image, and made woman using one of Adams ribs. So, can it be said that God made woman in his own image? And if he made woman in Adams' image through one of his ribs, would she not be a he too? 

His followers gain their sustenance from sucking on his teats 4 at a time

I wonder if Trump charges them for each teat they choose? He never gives anything for free ya know.

And if he made woman in Adams' image through one of his ribs, would she not be a he too? 

She would be a transgender clone, but without the benefit of surgery, it seems to me that she'd still look an awful lot like Adam.  And even with surgery, she couldn't have become pregnant, so no Cain, Abel, or Seth.

There could be a god. Just not the one you think or imagine.

There could also be a perfectly reasonable explanation for why that god does not communicate with humans, ever.  Maybe the god is only concerned for squirrels, and humans are as inconsequential and meaningless to it as squirrels are to humanity’s numerous concepts of god.  Or maybe the god’s only concern is for vegetation, and all other life forms are only here simply to exhale and otherwise provide the life-giving, precious CO2 that makes it’s true children thrive.  If a plant could talk to us, it might say “I can’t believe you can’t converse with god, we talk all the time.”  The possibilities are endless, but I have less than zero reasons to believe in a god that cares about humanity.  If it exists and cares at all, then it needs to stop failing.

I think God only speaks to dolphins.

I’ll take Sea World over church any day of the week.

There could also be a perfectly reasonable explanation for why that god does not communicate with humans, ever.  

Funny how some people claim that God speaks to them?

 If it exists

A big if.

I think God only speaks to dolphins.

Or through them...

I was thinking Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy when I said God only speaks to dolphins

Thanks for the fish.

Swam with dolphins once. Like a friendly wolf pack. One (playfully) tore my snorkel and mask off and then brought them back completely destroyed. 

_{Arguments for God’s existence can be demonstrated by the ordinary method of scientific inference}

Unfounded assertions are not evidence.

… and sourced from a site that insists the Earth is 6,000 years old and dinosaurs coexisted with human beings.   One step away from flat-Earthers.

Atheist Jerry Coyne has replied to my post last Sunday about prayer and the coronavirus pandemic. I argued that prayer makes sense because God exists, and His existence is demonstrable via the ordinary method of scientific inference. There’s a name for this demonstration—natural theology, which is the science of demonstrating God’s existence using evidence and logic. Natural theology may be contrasted with revealed theology, which is the study of God via revelation in Scripture.

Natural theology has a massive history—it goes back at least to the ancient philosopher Aristotle (384–322 BCE) (the Prime Mover argument). A high point in natural theology was Thomas Aquinas’s Five Ways, which are scientific (i.e. evidence-based) arguments for God’s existence. In fact, the cornerstone of Aquinas’ metaphysics is that essence (what a thing is) is utterly distinct from existence (that a thing is).

Existence is not a property, in the sense that “Bob exists” is not the same kind of assertion as “Bob is 49 years old and has blue eyes.” Existence is prior to any and all categories. This sounds esoteric, but it has a profound implication: God’s existence is, and must be, provable via ordinary methods of science—by the pattern of evidence-logic-inference.God’s existence cannot be proven by mere logic or reason alone. You can’t prove that anything exists merely by logic. You cannot reason from pure essence (logic) to real existence (evidence). You can’t prove that the pyramids of Egypt exist merely by the Euclidean geometry of triangles. You can only prove the existence of actual pyramids by providing physical evidence for them.

Proof of God’s existence is and must be the same: it must be inferential—it must come from evidence. Natural science uses exactly the same inferential structure: evidence-logic-inference

Here’s a précis of the scientific argument for the Big Bang:

1) Galaxies show red shift, which is proportional to distance from the earth (evidence)
2) This implies that galaxies are moving away and, by inference, that the universe in the past was a single point (logic and Einstein’s tensor equations of gravitation (logic)
3) The universe began with a Big Bang singularity (conclusion)

Here’s Aquinas’ First Way:

1) Change exists in nature (evidence)
2) Change is the actuation of potentiality and an essential chain of actuations cannot go to infinite regress. A fully actual Prime Mover is necessary (logic)
3) That Prime Mover is what all men call God (conclusion)

Note that both scientific theories have the exact same structure:

1) Evidence from nature
2) Logical (or mathematical) framework
3) Inference to conclusion

Coyne acknowledges this identity but he doesn’t agree with the logical structure of Aquinas’ argument. Coyne argues: “There is no reason a chain of actuations cannot “go to infinite regress”. If there’s a multiverse, that’s more or less what you get. See Sean Carroll’s discussion below.” (Sean Carroll, Does the Universe Need God? )

Neither Coyne nor Carroll understand the argument—Aquinas’ argument has nothing to do with a multiverse and is valid whether or not a multiverse exists.

There are four (explicit and implicit) components to Aquinas’ First Way (Aquinas at right).

First the evidence:

1) Evidence for change in nature. This is obvious. Things change all the time—atoms vibrate, water flows, leaves turn yellow, men get older. Change is everywhere, and the evidence part of Aquinas’ First Way is ubiquitous and more extensive than the evidence for any other scientific theory.

Then the logic:

2) Change is actuation of potency.
3) Instrumental (essential) causal chains exist in nature, and they cannot go to infinite regress.
4) The law of the Excluded Middle: a thing cannot be, and be its contrary, in the same respect at the same time. Something is either A, or not A, but not both simultaneously.

Let’s take the logic one step at a time, because this is what Coyne and Carroll don’t understand.

2) Change is actuation of potency: This is perhaps Aristotle’s most fundamental metaphysical insight. Aristotle observed that there are three ways of describing existence: there is non-existence, there is actuality, and there is an intermediate state he called potency. An example will make this clear. I’m a 64-year-old man. That is what I actually am. I am potentially 65 years old. If my health holds out, I’ll be 65 in a while. I am not, however, a dog. I will never become a dog. For me, “dog” is not a state of my existence, either actual or potential. So I am 64 years old (act), potentially 65 years old (potency), and not and never can be a dog (non-existence). When Aristotle and Aquinas say that change is actuation of potency, all they mean is that when something changes in nature, it goes from potentially something to actually something. A green leaf goes from potentially yellow to actually yellow in the fall. An acorn goes from potentially an oak tree to actually an oak tree when it grows. It’s an obvious concept and Aristotle’s contribution was to make it a precise metaphysical principle. There are remarkably profound principles that follow from the simple metaphysics of potency and act. One is that it provides proof of God’s existence, as we will see.

3) Instrumental (essential) causal chains exist in nature, and they cannot go to infinite regress: This is the part that is most subtle but it is true and vital. Causal chains exist in nature—things cause other things. Causal chains mean that potency is elevated so that it acts sequentially in things. A thing is in potency to be something, and it actually becomes that something because something else acts on it. A green leaf in potency to be yellow becomes actually yellow when the weather becomes colder in the fall, and the weather becomes colder in the fall because Earth orbits the sun with its axis not completely perpendicular to the plane of the orbit, and Earth orbits the sun because the momentum of the primordial solar system is conserved, etc.

Causal chains are of two types: some chains, called accidental chains, involve causes that need not be constantly present for the effect to occur. A classic example of an accidental causal chain is a family tree. My grandfather caused my father, my father caused me, and I caused my son. However, my son can exist even when all of his family tree dies. His great-grandfather and grandfather and father need not continuously exist to hold him in existence. My son’s causes can act, then go away, and the effect (my son) remains.

An instrumental (essential) causal chain is different. In an instrumental causal chain, each cause must continue to exist for the effect to continue to exist. If the cause does not simultaneously exist, the effect doesn’t exist. Aristotle (below left) used the example of a man pushing a rock with a stick. The stick is an instrumental cause of the movement of the rock: if the stick disappears, the rock stops moving. The stick is a necessary instrument to keep the rock moving continuously.

Infinite regress is possible for accidental (grandfather-father-etc.) causal chains. There is no logical reason why this causal chain can’t go back to infinity.

Infinite regress is impossible for instrumental (essential) causal chains. The reason is that an instrumental chain of causes (a chain of sticks used to push a rock) can’t get started by itself. Causation entails elevation of potency to act, but potency is not something that fully exists so it must be caused by something that does actually exist. An infinite regress of possibilities in an instrumental chain can’t do anything, so it can’t get started by itself. An infinite chain of sticks can’t move a rock. Someone must give the sticks a push. Something at the start of the chain must be actual in its own right and not depend on anything else to actuate it.

4) The law of the Excluded Middle: a thing cannot be, and be its contrary, in the same respect at the same time. Something is either A, or not-A, but not both A and not-A simultaneously: Some commentators have argued that a link in an instrumental chain of causes can activate itself—it can make itself go from potency to act. This is the perennial “the universe caused itself” argument. But that is not possible. Potency means “not actual”—if a thing is potentially something, then it’s not actually that something. If it were actually something, it would no longer be potentially so.

A thing in potency can’t activate itself because potency isn’t actual, and something not actual can’t cause anything else, even its own existence. If something could cause itself—if the universe could cause itself—and thus get a chain of instrumentally ordered causes going, it would have to be in potency to be the universe and in act to be the universe at the same time, which violates the Law of the Excluded Middle. To cause itself, the universe must potentially exist and actually exist at the same time. The universe can potentially exist, or actually exist, but it cannot simultaneouslypotentially and actually exist. It is logically and metaphysically impossible for something to cause itself. It is logically impossible for a chain of instrumentally ordered causes to cause itself.

An instrumental causal chain—and there are countless such chains in nature—requires a cause that is itself not caused—a First Cause (Aquinas’ Second Way) or a Prime Mover (Aquinas’ First Way). Aquinas’ First and Second Ways are subtly different in that the First Way reasons from change in nature and the Second Way reasons from cause in nature.

His Third Way—the proof from Necessary Existence—has a similar structure. Together, these proofs are called Cosmological Arguments, because they make an argument from the characteristics of nature (the cosmos) via logic to a Prime Mover, First Cause, or Necessary Existence.

The cosmological arguments follow the same formal structure as any theory in science. They invoke evidence from nature (things change, things are caused, things exist), analyze the evidence on a logical framework, and arrive at an inductive conclusion.

The evidence for the cosmological arguments is massive, the logic is impeccable, and the conclusion is inescapable. God exists, with morecertainly than we know of the existence of anything in science.

Coyne raises other questions about the cosmological arguments—how do we know that the Prime Mover is the God of revelation, why does everything need a cause, what caused God, etc. Aquinas answered these questions in meticulous detail (it comprises much of his Summa Contra Gentiles—here, we’ll call it Summa Contra Coyne) and I’ll address further questions in posts to come.

Further reading in the discussion between Michael Egnor and Jerry Coyne:

https://mindmatters.ai/2020/03/gods-existence-is-proven-by-science/

Who said they are unfounded? 

This was rebutted by Dr. Coyne.   My guess is that you did not even bother to read Coyne's rebuttal.

So what do expect someone to take away from you seeding this article within a comment?

That is, what point are you trying to make (if any)?

Philosophical arguments for God (especially given they have been all shown to be flawed) are worthless.

Make a point.

No, he rebutted Dr. Coyne...

Support them, then.

God doesn't exist just because you or anybody else says that he does.  

The cosmological arguments follow the same formal structure as any theory in science. They invoke evidence from nature (things change, things are caused, things exist), analyze the evidence on a logical framework, and arrive at an inductive conclusion.

The evidence for the cosmological arguments is massive, the logic is impeccable, and the conclusion is inescapable. God exists, with more certainly than we know of the existence of anything in science.

https://thenewstalkers.com/gordy327/group_discuss/11235/the-fallacy-of-biblical-stories-part-8-god-the-biggest-fallacy-of-them-all#cm1467057

The evidence for the cosmological arguments is massive, the logic is impeccable, and the conclusion is inescapable. God exists, with more certainly than we know of the existence of anything in science.

Let's see your argument.   

Or, pick what you think is your strongest argument (if cosmological, then pick the variant you consider the best).   Be specific.  Don't just copy & paste an article into a comment.

The cosmological arguments follow the same formal structure as any theory in science.

They're reproducible?  Falsifiable?

The evidence for the cosmological arguments is massive

Yet never presented.

the logic is impeccable

Yet never understandable.

the conclusion is inescapable

Yet never reached.

Especially fascistic articles that just go on and on with no basis in fact.

One step away from flat-Earthers.

Is that a step above? Or a step below? Hard to know which is floating higher in a cesspool. 

Make a point.

I doubt he has any. Just proselytization and religious parroting.

The evidence for the cosmological arguments is massive, the logic is impeccable, and the conclusion is inescapable. God exists, with more certainly than we know of the existence of anything in science.

Ok, here's your chance! Present the evidence and your argument then! Let's see if it passes scientific scrutiny. Prove that you're not jus talking BS all the time.

Just proselytization and religious parroting.

I thought that was against the CoC. But, I guess that does not count with XX. He does it endlessly and rarely ever gets called on it. 

The cosmological arguments …

… are simply arguments following a basic pattern of logic.   None of them prove (or even provide evidence for) the existence of the Christian God.   Dr. William Lane Craig is one of the foremost presenters of arguments such as these.   His instance of the cosmological argument is the Kalam Cosmological Argument which goes like this (per Dr. Craig):

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.

There really is no need for me to even break this argument down.   The reason is that its conclusion does not in any way provide evidence for the Christian God (much less proof).

I will, however, illustrate this:

Premise 1 is universally accepted as true:  it is simple cause and effect.   Our universe (best we can tell) came into existence at the event we call the 'Big Bang'.  Thus premise 2 is accepted as true (best we know).   It is accepted universally that something caused this event but nobody knows what that is.   However, there is nothing that suggests the cause is necessarily sentient.   It could have been a chain reaction precipitated by quantum fluctuation (one of several scientific hypotheses).  

So while the cause might be a sentient entity, there is absolutely nothing that suggests it must be or even that it more likely is .   Sentience is not evidenced in any way by this argument.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument does not even show the necessity of a sentient entity yet the Christian God is defined to be much more than a sentient entity:

• sentient
• omniscient
• omnipotent
• omnipresent
• omnibenevolent
• perfect
• eternal
• …

Clearly the Kalam is light years away from providing any support for the Christian God.   It has no chance to address these attributes.

Other than that, it is a perfectly sound argument.

Now show where my analysis is wrong.

I thought that was against the CoC.

Proselytizing is.

But, I guess that does not count with XX. He does it endlessly and rarely ever gets called on it. 

Oh, he does from time to time. One of his comments in this discussion was deleted for proselytizing. Of course, he'll probably complain that he's being censored or persecuted or something like that.

There really is no need for me to even break this argument down. 

I have a hunch that it might become necessary.

Now show where my analysis is wrong.

We might be waiting a long time on that one. Better get some popcorn, Lol

Actually, while he's proving your analysis wrong (*snort* ), he could also try to argue the points made in the article and demonstrate where my analysis is wrong.

I would consider it progress to see a demonstrated understanding of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Every little bit helps I guess.

As always, when asked to provide an original reply to back up a claim, the deafening silence ensues.

Nada from MAGA on @1.3.17

As always, when asked to provide an original reply to back up a claim, the deafening silence ensues.

At least he's consistent.

Nada from MAGA on @ 1.3.17

Or on 1.3.15. I offered a fair opportunity for explanation, which is still open.

If one cannot explain one's position, it is likely the individual does not even understand why the position is held.

How can anyone (honestly, that is) offer the Kalam (or another Cosmological argument) as evidence of the Christian God?  

Interestingly, the Kalam is reasoning that supports how I would define 'God':  that which enabled the existence of our universe.

If one cannot explain one's position, it is likely the individual does not even understand why the position is held.

Hence, the parroting in an attempt to make it look like one understands and is making a point, even f they do not.

One wonders how anyone can offer the Kalam as evidence of the Christian God. 

Don't forget, some people offer mere belief as evidence for God. Anything that suits their narratives is "evidence" to them. 

The Kalam is, however, reasoning that supports how I would define 'God': that which enabled the existence of our universe.

Yes, but the God of the bible is not limited to that definition alone. If it were, the God of the bible would probably be less fallacious.

Yes, but the God of the bible is not limited to that definition alone.

Precisely the point.

Precisely the point.

Some also miss the point of the logical contradictions associated with the biblically defined God too.

Great analysis as usual.  

The notion of God being supernatural as an excuse for why there is no evidence always strikes me as desperate.    It just amazes me that people are able to limit their thinking to one-sided logic:  to see only one side of a logical situation and ignore the other.   In this case, as you note, God is ostensibly interacting with the physical world even today.   He certainly did so in a grand manner per the writings of ancient men.   But today he is, by some, the force that elects our leaders, engages in divine acts, etc.    So God clearly, absolutely is believed to interact with the physical world.   Yet when it comes to evidence, well, that is impossible because God is supernatural.

Great analysis as usual.  

Thank you.

The notion of God being supernatural as an excuse for why there is no evidence always strikes me as desperate.  

Indeed. What's amazing is that somehow, despite no evidence and being supernatural,  ancient men were able to write about God as if they had intimate knowledge about God. Some people even today actually think they know God or speak for God. It boggles the mind.

Yet when it comes to evidence, well, that is impossible because God is supernatural.

But somehow, we have a biography on God in the form of the bible.

Fear to superstition to mythology are the basics of all religions.

The "fear" part is instrumental in the brainwashing.

The "fear" part is instrumental in the brainwashing.

Indeed it is.

Yet when it comes to evidence, well, that is impossible because God is supernatural.

Why can't God interact with the physical world if he is omnipotent? I'm confused by that

It is a nonsense excuse.   On one hand the individual making the argument wants to show that God is real and speaks of their own direct experiences (never specific by the way and never evidenced) and then that recorded in the Bible.    Yet on the other hand that individual explains away thousands of years with no evidence by claiming evidence is impossible since God is supernatural.

It is another having it both ways contradiction.

My question is out of context with the rest of your comment. My apologies. I went back and re-read your comment at least twice, and once out loud. I see my mistake.

I was about to argue that God is God and can do anything She wants...kinda like Q on Star Trek. One cannot pin human attributes on God because She is not human. We don't know what God is if She exists

I was about to argue that God is God and can do anything She wants...kinda like Q on Star Trek.

Which led me to point out the contradictions and paradoxes mentioned in the article.

Once cannot pin human attributes on God because She is not human. We don't know what God is if She exists

And yet, humans not only claim (often with certainty) that God exists, but also applies certain attributed to God that no one could possibly know. And that's without any evidence whatsoever.

Think about this. Where does all of our information about God come from (basically)?

Answer: The Bible. A book written by ancient men with pens (h/t to TiG). So all those paradoxes and contradictions are caused by men who didn't read what the other men were writing.

If people were honest about themselves, they would admit that a belief in God is a superstition....illogical and undefined. And it's all based on emotion, no intellect needed.

Answer: The Bible. A book written by ancient men with pens (h/t to TiG). So all those paradoxes and contradictions are caused by men who didn't read what the other men were writing.

Exactly. What's laughable is that some will claim the bible is the "word of God." I sure do not see God's signature in it.

they would admit that a belief in God is a superstition....illogical and undefined. And it's all based on emotion, no intellect needed.

As is/was belief in all other gods, past and present.

You are just too damn cute Trout!

. After all, the previous bible stories covered did have possible alternative explanations for their particular events that did not necessitate God. That means God isn't actually necessary and casts doubt as to the actual existence of God.

The existence of God is not at all dependent on the accuracy of Bible stories. 

The existence of God is not at all dependent on the accuracy of Bible stories. 

True.   But when one defines their god as that which is defined by the Bible, the integrity of the Bible comes heavily into play.

If one defines God as, for example, the sentient creator of the universe (no additional attributes), then the stories in the Bible are irrelevant because the god in question is not that defined by the Bible.

Bottom line, how one defines 'God' makes a hellofalot of difference when discussing the existence of same.

I can define a god that is real and provide evidence of same.

The various religions are obviously human creations. Whether any or all of them had divine inspiration is probably unknowable. 

Yup nobody knows if a divine sentient entity actually exists.

Yup because nobody knows if a divine sentient entity actually exists.

But some people sure pretend or act like it does, even though they cannot actually prove it or provide evidence.

I can define a god that is real and provide evidence of same.

Unlike certain other individuals who make claims for a God.

The existence of God is not at all dependent on the accuracy of Bible stories. 

It isn't so much about the existence of God as it is about how God is portrayed in the bible. Although, the two may be connected. If the bible is not accurate, then how God is depicted may not be accurate either, if at all. This can include claims of God's abilities or existence itself. I've always questioned biblical accuracy, as many stories are easily explained without the need for a divine intervention. That lends to the fallacy of God as well.

The various religions are obviously human creations.

As are the various God/s.

If there actually was a "god" and I met it, I'd do my best to kick its lame mass murdering ass.

If there actually was a "god" and I met it, I'd do my best to kick its lame mass murdering ass.

That reminds me of the Star Trek DS9 episode where Cmdr Sisko punches Q. That was a great moment. 

By definition god is always portrayed as eternal.  If humans think that mortality is a gateway into their own eternal existence in a new realm, then what makes them different from God at that point?  Upon death they become eternal and equally powerless to affect change or even communicate with life in this existence, just like God.  It’s all so mind numbingly pointless.

It’s all so mind numbingly pointless.

As Rick Sanchez (Rick & Morty) says, "when you know nothing matters, the universe is yours,"

If it gives one comfort to have faith, I don't see it being pointless

If it gives one comfort to have faith, I don't see it being pointless

Emotional comfort is one reason why people believe in a God. But that only demonstrates the subjectiveness of belief or the claims for a God. It's based on emotion rather than reason.

What if it gives them comfort to the point that they are giving money that they can’t afford to lose to televangelists?  Happens all the time because they are easy targets.

It's sad, but there's nothing that can be done about it. 

What if it gives them comfort to the point that they are giving money that they can’t afford to lose to televangelists?  Happens all the time because they are easy targets.

Then they have been conned. That's the risk of allowing emotion to override reason.

financial decisions based on emotion rarely work out. some people learn that, others don't.

I'd say most decisions based on emotion have a higher chance of not working out. It's certainly not rational.

I don't see it being pointless

I see religion as being a dangerous thing.

I see religion as being a dangerous thing.

That is quite easily demonstrable too.

Disproving God is like wading against a river of shit - always more shit coming down the pipe.

You have to do it on a case by case basis based on the definition presented by the believer - but there are tens of thousands of Gods, and Christianity alone has tens of thousands of branches - each making different concrete claims about their deity. The approach you take when debating the existence of the Mormon version of Christianity might be different than the one you would take in approaching the god of Spinoza. In reality - since religions make concrete claims - once one such claims has been disproved - that should be the end of it - but in reality religions generally just form some new branch which claims that particular claim was just allegorical - or a mistranslation - or somehow the Devil is responsible for the evidence being contradictory. Many believers will default to defending something closer to a Spinozan God with one breath - since an undefined God of nature which is indistinguishable from no God is easier to defend - but then claim that as evidence for their particular brand of divine cracker believing madness with the next breath. 

It's not for one to disprove a claim. It's up to the one making the claim (with certainty) to prove, or at least provide evidence to support their claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But it also depends on how one defines god. The God of the Bible as it is depicted is a logical contradiction. In effect, that "disproves" that particular version of a God.  That's not the same as saying there is no God at all. As I first noted, there could be a God. Just not the one that is commonly portrayed.

I agree, but it is not really about disproving but rather encouraging believers to think about what they are believing and why.    Do they believe this because of words from other human beings?   If so, why?   Why trust the mere words of ancient superstitious men and those with agendas?   Why trust the words of indoctrinated modern people?   What a human being opines is not relevant;  what is relevant is what that human being can evidence (or, ideally, prove).

Religion historically has been an extremely effective device for controlling the masses.   It remains so today, sadly, in spite of the extraordinary level of knowledge available compared to what ancient people had.   Religions have been perfecting their game for thousands of years and clearly the developed tactics work even with 21st century, intelligent human beings.

If there is a god, I would find that to be the most important, most interesting thing in life.   But after thousands of years (and thousands of gods) and countless billions of believers, nobody has been able to even provide credible evidence that any of these gods exists.   Why, then, do people believe these stories told by other human beings?

rather encouraging believers to think about what they are believing and why. 

If people actually thought (rationally) about it, they may not be believers.

Do they believe this because of words from other human beings?

I'm sure that's one reason.

Why trust the mere words of ancient superstitious men and those with agendas?   Why trust the words of indoctrinated modern people? 

Because those with agendas or those indoctrinated are essentially predators. They prey on peoples ignorance, gullibility, and/or emotions to push their brand of religious belief or delusion. This is quite apparent with televangelists, as an example.

What a human being opines is not relevant;  what is relevant is what that human being can evidence (or, ideally, prove).

That would be logical. But we know people are often not logical.

intelligent human beings.

The fact that so many people fall for religious based tactics brings "intelligent" into question. But I know what you mean.

Why, then, do people believe these stories told by other human beings?

Because they either fill in gaps of knowledge (even if the information is wrong), appeal to emotions, or prey on fear. Or maybe people are just plain nuts or don't know any better? Who knows?

As we have discussed, I think the greatest factor is that human beings (all of us) naturally seek comfort.   When faced with the scariest of realities such as death, we tend to be very wishful thinkers.   Religions all promise grand rewards, comfort, certainty.   Unabashed reality, in contrast, offers no guarantees of comfort, no sentient entity who has our back, and a finality of death.   It is much easier to believe (hope) about comforting thoughts than face the harshness of our reality.

In the past, ancient people knew very little about all the scary things happening (volcanoes, weather patterns, disease, neurological disorders, etc.) and so religions stepped in with answers.   They demystified the scary unknowns of life and this alone is comforting.   I certainly understand why religions have taken off and have lasted for so long.  

What is surprising, however, is that they continue even now.    I guess George Carlin was right:   the bullshit stories of religions are incredibly effective ... "Holy Shit" — Carlin.

I think the greatest factor is that human beings (all of us) naturally seek comfort.  

I think you are correct.

Religions all promise grand rewards, comfort, certainty.  

Many also promise suffering, retribution, and despair, for eternity, if one does not follow said religion. Fear can be a great motivator too.

It is much easier to believe (hope) about comforting thoughts than face the harshness of our reality.

Many cannot seem to handle reality.

I certainly understand why religions have taken off and have lasted for so long.  

What boggles the mind is that today, with all our accumulated knowledge and understanding, we still cling to religion and religious myths.

I guess George Carlin was right:   the bullshit stories of religions are incredibly effective ..."Holy Shit"— Carlin.

A comedic genius wise beyond his years.

There’s no point in debating the Spinoza concept of a god.  It is genuinely and inherently inoffensive.  It’s the organized religions that are inherently offensive to one another and non-belief itself.

There’s no point in debating the Spinoza concept of a god.

Watch any religious debate - and that's the strawman argument you're most likely to see from the religious side. They start by claiming a specific deity which has defined traits, an established place in history, and actual interactions with the world, but then rather than defend those positions in a serious debate they retreat to defending a god who is indistinguishable from no God - like some poorly crafted untestable scientific hypothesis. 

but then rather than defend those positions in a serious debate they retreat to defending a god who is indistinguishable from no God

Or they continue to proclaim their God is real and has specific traits while ignoring any logical contradiction or rebuttal and saying one needs to believe or have faith. Essentially, it's saying God is real and has specific traits because wishful thinking.

Who will remember us after we’re gone? Most of us consider that our children, grandchildren, and maybe our great-grandchildren will remember us. Eventually—with the exception of a few historical figures—the memory of our lives will disappear from human consciousness. That is an uncomfortable thought, as one writer for Scientific American notes, so he muses, “will the universe remember us after we’re gone?”

[Deleted]

This is simply proselytization.  

[Deleted]

If you are going to drop full articles into a comment you need to at least establish the point you are trying to make.   Otherwise it looks like you are spamming Gordy's article with tripe from Answers in Genesis.

[Deleted]

If you have anything even remotely resembling a discussion, a point, or an argument, then make it. Parroting something from a religious source doesn't address any of the points made, nor does it demonstrate any original thought on your part. At best, it's spamming.

I think for Part 9, I'll focus on Sodom & Gomorrah. After covering all these stories so far, does anyone else think the bible reads as a big collection of theological disaster movies? I mean, The Great Flood was essentially the biblical version of Waterworld, starring Noah as biblical Kevin Costner.

Another thought is the fallacy of the Bible itself.   The Bible self-claims to be divine.   There are myriad fallacies in that claim.

True. But there's really nothing to contradict those fallacies. So it might make for a short article. Of course, some will simply ignore the contradictions and fallacies by claiming one needs faith to understand it. As if that somehow validates the Bible's claims. It's a total disconnect from logic. Given how well you spot and point out biblical contradictions, such an article is right up your alley, as you could do it better justice than I. Just a thought.

Hell, Gordy, there has been almost no meaningful debate on your articles.   It is mostly the old game of attack the messenger, nit-pick, strawmen, etc.

But, anyway, I was just tossing it out for consideration.

Yes, I've noticed the standard tactics. A thoughtful debate would be most welcome. Of course, pointing out biblical fallacies might be uncomfortable to some, so they react emotionally rather than rationally. I suspect pointing out the fallacy of the Bible itself will garmer a similar response. Clearly biblical proponents are unable to muster any meaningful rebuttals or alternative explanations to the points made in these articles. 

But, anyway, I was just tossing it out for consideration.

Thank you for that. I appreciate the consideration. But like I said, I think that's one topic where you're much better suited to analyze than I. 

If you actually read the bible and not cherry pick like many "followers" do, that God is not worth the time to piss on.  It's vengeful, unloving, vindictive and childish.  It is responsible for far more evil and death than the Satan.  And yet people love it. 

The "followers" are suffering from a massive case of Stockholm Syndrome.

It's vengeful, unloving, vindictive and childish. 

Funny how God has many human attributes.

It is responsible for far more evil and death than the Satan.  And yet people love it. 

I've asked some theists what Satan has done that is so "evil," especially compared to the evil God has done as described in the bible. No surprise I don't get much of an answer, other than justification and defense of God's own actions.

The "followers" are suffering from a massive case of Stockholm Syndrome.

Or self delusion.

No surprise I don't get much of an answer, other than justification and defense of God's own actions.

From what I have observed over the many years, most theists know very little about their religions.   They certainly know what they have been taught, but their educations typically lack the deep dive that provides the rationale behind the beliefs.

And this makes sense.   If most theists did really seriously explore and contemplate their beliefs, I suspect they would no longer be theists.   There will always be the few who find ways to bridge the cognitive dissonance, but I suspect most will just slowly discard nonsense until they find that they really no longer accept what they have been told.

Funny how God has many human attributes.

I've long thought it true that "God is made in man's image".

but their educations typically lack the deep dive that provides the rationale behind the beliefs.

Possibly because religions do not like being questioned or challenged. Doing so may be viewed as a lack in faith and subject to God's punishment. It's basically "believe what you're told, no questions asked."

most theists know very little about their religions.

I believe that is true.  I don't think most Christians realize that the early thinkers in their religion considered the Biblical tales to be allegorical, not literal.