'Sir': Trump supporter goes silent when confronted by CNN about 'God' in the Constitution
By: Matthew Chapman (Raw Story - Celebrating Years of Independent Journalism)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
CNN's Donie O'Sullivan clashed with Julian Lightfoot, a Donald Trump supporter who was stunned to learn that "God" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution.
The interaction was part of an advance excerpt from "Misinformation: The Trump Faithful," scheduled to air on Sunday, and follows up on a number of other interviews he has held with Trump supporters, including another who told him Trump is "pretty doggone close" to Jesus in what he went through and represents to the world.
"The job of a journalist is to ask the questions, allow the person to speak, and just report the facts, what was spoken," said Lightfoot. "Would you like for me to pull up the definition of journalists?"
"That's okay, but thank you, Julian," said O'Sullivan.
"I have a God-given right to speak my own truth," she continued.
"But there are facts, right?" O'Sullivan pressed her.
"The facts have shown that the election was stolen," said Lightfoot. "Whether you're willing to look at that and accept that and really show what's going on, that's your issue, not ours. We want the God-given freedom that our Constitution and our Bill of Rights is based on."
"God-given constitutional rights," repeated O'Sullivan. "They're two different things, right?"
"No, sir, they're not," insisted Lightfoot. "Read, R-E-A-D the Constitution, read it out loud to yourself, so that you hear what the words of the Constitution say."
"God isn't mentioned in the Constitution," said O'Sullivan.
"Sir," chided Lightfoot. She proceeded to pull out her phone and look up the verbatim text of the Constitution, staring silently at it as she looked for any mention of God, at which point the footage cut back to anchor Jake Tapper in the newsroom with O'Sullivan.
"What happened after she looked it up?" asked Tapper.
"We found out that God is not mentioned in the Constitution," said O'Sullivan, adding that attitudes like Lightfoot's aren't unique. "There's this conflation between the United States and between the land of the Bible, and it's because of that that a lot of these folks who are also convinced that the election was stolen, they now view this as a kind of Biblical crusade to steal it back and to save America. So it's misinformation on top of a very perverse view of patriotism and Christianity."
Watch the video below or click here.
Trump supporter Julian Lightfoot learns God is not in the Constitutionwww.youtube.com
2020 ElectionReligion & PoliticsSmartNewsTrump NewsVideo
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
42 visitors
I wish God would show us some mercy and get these people out of our national political dialogue.
Showing whackadoodles sells.
Why would the 'news' media not take financial advantage of that?
Talk to the media. They probably interview a couple dozen people to get them to say something that will show controversy or stupidity. Remember Waters world? He would interview people and show the ones with really ignorant responses. There is no way he didn't interview 100 people looking for the responses he wanted to air.
Also interestingly enough I would not have known anything about this person if not for you adding her to political dialogue right here.
In fairness to this lady, and others who think like her, God is referenced in the Declaration of Independence.
…
The Declaration, of course, is not the Constitution, but it is justifiably revered and looked to as a document that defines what America is supposed to stand for. So, when people envision America as having a connection to God, I get it. That doesn't make this lady right about anything in particular, but I don’t think this concept is a crazy one, and it’s a little pedantic to focus only on whether or not it’s in the Constitution.
The fact remains that her, "truth," however arrived at, is different than reality. Pedantic? Meh, I feel that it is based on sound reasoning. But then again, I feel no need to put "God" in anything but a box to go on the closet shelf.
It’s really not sound reasoning. If you know you have a certain right, does it matter if the right is spelled out in Article VI, or the 9th Amendment, or simply the US Code? If you’re a lawyer working a case, it matters, but it doesn’t matter in this context.
Set aside what she thinks the documentary source is and get at the main theme of her words. She is talking about God-given rights, that is “Natural” rights or Natural Law. This is a philosophy that was very much in the minds of the Founders, and remains the foundation of how our government, laws, and rights intertwine.
Two points if I may:
1. This woman did not know for what she spoke. Thus she has been misinformed and is likely continuing to spread misinformation.
2. Some of the same founders who invoked God to part and separate themselves from a king over them. . . using God as a rhetorical flourish. . . but deliberately leaving God out of foundation of their constitution which would replace the role of King in importance to a new nation.
Can one argue about pedanticness without becoming pedantic?
I don't think that Jefferson held by revealed religions. This lady is arguing from the point of revealed religion. Her "God" is a specific god and therefore all that springs from the founding documents is based on revealed religion, aka., Christianity. I do not think this was Jefferson's intent at all. Indeed, I think that in the draft stages of the document he left the word "God" out of the Declaration.
In the writing of the Constitution, however, any reference to "God" was purposefully omitted.
First, she doesn’t once mention Jesus or the Bible. It’s not about a specific religion.
Second, she also doesn’t say God is in the Constitution. She says the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are based on God given freedom.
Finally, Jefferson (who wrote the Declaration, not the Constitution - are you conflating them now?) was a big believer in Natural Rights.
She’s right.
I would have to disagree with that. She opens up her phone to try and find the use of the word "God" she thinks is in there.
My take on this is basically that people often hold abstract or summary knowledge and forget (and misremember) many of the details that comprised that summary knowledge. People also often merely accept 'facts' from others without actually verifying these 'facts'.
I think it is a common view that our founders attempted to form a nation that would protect natural rights (rights from nature ... typically, at that time, this is a reference to deities). While the CotUS is secular (by intent), it is quite fair to hold that it was influenced by some level of religious thinking (almost inevitable).
So this lady probably uses ideas like the later ("In God We Trust") slogans on money and later facts like we "swear on the Bible" and of course the reference to inalienable rights and God in the DoI to substantiate a belief that God is mentioned in the CotUS.
It is an easy mistake to make. But it is, point of fact, a mistake.
We don’t see the result of the dispute. She factually says the Constitution and Bill of Rights are based on God-given freedom. It’s the guy interviewing her who warps that into God being mentioned in the Constitution.
As is the norm for these left leaning "journalists" and their "Man on the Street", highly edited, hit pieces.
There is no such thing as "God given freedom" , short of anarchy. Rights are conferred by governments.
That is 100% ass backwards, government restricts rights they don't grant them.
Bingo
The right to own property and not have it stolen from you is a right granted by government (on behalf of the demos). One of many examples.
Ultimately, without human-imposed order we have anarchy. With anarchy the only reified 'right' is the right to do what you want until someone else with more power deprives you of that right.
A lot of people think that , but it is not reality.
Unless you want to live on a deserted island.
Are you free to own your own land, outside of government ?
Not really, unless you want to agree that someone else is free to take it from you.
exactly.
Bullshit, people have held property for years without government. government doesn't grant you the right to own property, FFS. they have laws preventing it's theft, They don't grant the right to own it.
So until governments were formed nobody owned land? I have the right to carry guns, or take drugs.....until the government restricts that right. PERIOD.
Kind of like abortions? does the government grant you the right to abortion? or are red states restricting that "right"
without government your "right" to own property cannot be enforced. You are describing a dog eat dog world.
This same argument can be made about life, Do i only have my life because the government makes a law saying someone can't take it?
The right to have an abortion is secured by the government. Otherwise someone could kidnap you and force you to have the baby.
Obviously human beings have life when they are born.
Your right to live your life the way you want or need to is secured by government. Otherwise you are in a dog eat dog situation. Is that what you want ?
Yes it can be enforced John, the same way it was enforced for millennia. We have laws which are what you are describing to promote civilization, same as laws against stealing and murder, they aren't rights.
You’re free to believe that, of course, but it’s not how the Founders felt about it.
So that we understand the distinction here, the Constitution is the law. It is a legal document that outlines how government will function.
The Declaration of Independence has a kind of legal significance, but it is not law. Rather, it is two things. One, it is a justification argument for breaking with England. But before that, and at least as important, it is a statement of philosophy about the role of rights and government.
This is a bottom-up approach to government combined with a top-down (God to humans) approach to rights. It could not be more clear. The rights exist and come from God. Government exists to secure rights that already exist.
This is why the Bill of Rights addresses our rights as preexisting and restricts government’s authority to infringe upon those rights.
Why are you changing the criteria? the point is the government doesn't give you rights. not whether or not the protect them as some sort of compact.
I dont know what countries had no government, where the people were safe and secure. Even tribes on an island in the middle of nowhere have a form of government.
In an abstraction I would agree with the concept of "God given rights", but in practice it means very little.
Almost there, it's not granted by the government, the right is secured by the government.
I'm at a loss for words here, who knew abortion was the only thing that prevented this.
Bull. In order to have properly constructed 'God-given' rights . . .everybody would have to be under the authority of God. . . and there is no obvious proof of God (or this on-going discussion about God's existence) would cease.
I saw an item couple weeks ago from a journalist who used to work for one of those left wing sites that do that. His job was to go "teaparty" rallies, interview hundreds of people and then select the most "out there" response and package that as representative of that tea party protest. Said he had to quit because it cost him his self respect.
A "right" that is not secure is nothing but words.
Just saying 'bullshit' does not make you right.
I thought I was clear but I will be even more specific. When human beings evolved from strictly hunter/gatherer to agricultural the concept of property (in the abstract) was formed. Settled tribes (on some plot of land ... property) could be seen as owning that land. But they actually did not own it. This is evidenced by the fact that more powerful tribes could conquer them and then they would 'own' the land. To wit, nobody owns the land ... it just is occupied by the strongest tribe.
The reality is that there was no real ownership. Anarchy ruled.
With the formation of civil society, we reified rights such as property rights. These rights (especially in societies based on the rule of law) cannot exist without government agency. And yes the important portion of these rights is that government will serve as the enforcement agent (where there was none before).
Without enforcement, there is no right. So as I noted, government enables the right to own property. Without government support there is no right to own property ... nobody actually owns the property.
You can say the same for Fox News "man on the street" interview segments. Thus, both sides have their political warfare camps-much to the frustration of the rest of us who want them all to pull down the propaganda platforms they have constructed.
There is a larger problem here though, that is, the perpetuation of misinformation as a form of resistance is strangling proper discourse throughout the political sphere.
This is well said.
Bullshit, Plus i didn't say rights came from "god" but your rights aren't granted to you by the government.
Correct. We had occupiers and settlers. Without enforcement, a settler can be displaced by a more powerful entity.
You have the ability to do all sorts of stuff. You are conflating ability with rights.
We all have the ability to (attempt to) perform an abortion. Many women (unfortunately) have used that ability in the past (many lost their lives doing so) with coat hangers, etc. The right to have an abortion means the ability to legally have a physician perform the procedure.
Seems to me, you think that if a human being is capable of doing something that this means they have a natural right to do so. That kind of dilutes the concept of a right into mush.
We have laws which grants rights, privileges, and freedoms. . . in a community. Otherwise, good luck, existing with people non-communally who do not respect your worldview and the resulting chaos (which should end in injury or death). This sense of community even is practiced here . . . where "mods" guide our freedom of speech in the virtual community by use of terms of service, code of conduct, and last but not least—"skirting the COC." All done to put positive parameters around what is permitted speech on this site and what is not permitted speech in a shared "community."
I dont dispute that in the abstract rights may come from "God".
The temptation then is to say "so what?"
I would bet anything that the woman in the video wants rights that are only realized by government.
"I have a God given right to xyz" is almost meaningless.
The words state that these rights exist and come from God. This is a belief. It does not mean it is true.
So yes this is probably a decent approximation of the views of the framers (although the DoI does not necessarily mean the framers were aligned with every sentiment therein).
That is, again, a belief. When we speak of basic rights like the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, our government ostensibly attempts to impose restrictions to enable these rights. So on one hand I can agree with your point.
On the other hand, there are all sorts of rights that people have in civilized society. I have used the example of property rights to illustrate something that does not seem like it would be 'God-given' and would not exist without the imposed-order and enforcement from government.
To wit, civil society will create 'rights' that simply do not exist in anarchy. This is not an all or nothing proposition.
First, there is a presumption that everybody answers to (a) God. Second, "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" is negotiable as it is defined by community -local and national- to be acceptable and allowable. For instance, the second amendment grants 'anybody' the use of a gun-but then the nuances (details) kick in to action to determine who PROPERLY should not be granted the 'right.' Another case, being the use of a machine gun or nuclear weapons development in one's 'dwelling' . . . the unabridged right is not absolute (though it is spoken of as such).
Also, there is a right to be one's self (presuming one does no harm to others), but we have SCOTUS conservative justices who would like to define homosexual marriages out of existence based on their prejudices and the prejudices of the 'majority' or based solely on its not being specifically granted (as a right) in the Constitution. That is, the question becomes: Is human freedom negotiable or not negotiable?
It's a distinction without any significant difference. (And yes, I do understand what is meant by this rhetoric: "God-given rights" as a means to touch the consciences of other (more powerful figures) men, women, and children.)
Let's be clear: it is rhetoric all the same. Every society needs a "Lawgiver." One whose job it is to confirm the positive and negate the negative - by holding people accountable for each. Though, negating the negative is more of what will be noticed through actions taken (enforcement).
And before the establishment of ownership rights, chieftains and kings, arbitrarily determined rights. . . and wrongs (and sat in judgement up to removing the life of any offender of an edict. . . or whim). There was no other authority to make an appeal to that would sustain itself.
I replied to the SUBSTANCE of the thread, not to your 'narrow' rhetoric. Besides, parameters are set around 'rights' all the time by laws made by lawmakers. For example:
Of course, one could ask why women needed specificity in the constitution for a right that men gave themselves in the constitution (and of course, women of the period probably did wonder. . . to no avail for such a long period). The obvious answer being, men did not WANT them to vote for a phletora of private reasons. Thus, this "god-given right" was denied them on its face.
And yet, the debate continues as to if there is a God or Gods, and which God or Gods is relevant to U.S. —technically, quite a few "Gods" are relevant to this nation of multiple people from around the world. God has not or no longer appearing to respond to the 'questioners.' In lieu of the silence, law steps up to speak to rights.
Also, it is an important aspect to mention that God was invoked in the Declaration of Independence to prick the heart (consciences) of the English king (who served a 'higher power') and English citizens of the period. It was 'higher' rhetoric. And should be understood that way. I, possibly we, can tell this because God or the Church is not the substance of the Declaration of Independence. . . but is mentioned only in closing 'argument' and then only once.
This is a different focus from the seed and what I have been commenting on, which is the statements the woman made in the video. I have not been debating the best approach to - or conceptions of - rights and government. My concern has only been to be fair to this lady, who, frankly appears to have been ambushed by a reporter and then needlessly mocked on TV and the internet.
Her conception of natural, god-given rights as a foundation for law in America is totally valid, historically, in my view. We can talk ourselves blue in the face over whether it's realistic or optimal, but that is beside the point. It's also not her responsibility. Historically, her words express a fair summary of Colonial and early American concepts of government and rights. That's the only point I'm interested in.
Good job as usual, Tacos.
As I noted @2.1.6 I do not have a problem with this lady thinking, in the abstract, that our CotUS was based on God-given rights. It is an easy thing to get wrong (technically and literally) and, arguably, the framers were mostly religious (at least deists) so their philosophy clearly was imprinted on the CotUS (even though it was intentionally secular).
First off, I gave no claim to authorship of the Constitution. That was an agreed-upon text by the members of the Constitutional Convention, who had met to fix the Articles of Confederation, but scrapped them and gave us the COTUS instead.
Jefferson was a big believer in Natural Rights, but he wasn't a believer in revealed religion. He was fine with "Creator" but felt that the use of "God" instead of "god" in the Declaration was going too far towards revealed religion.
To Wit:
And from the conversation we are having, it looks like he should have just stuck with "Creator".
He did write “Nature’s God.”
This refers to writings which, in effect, favor understanding the concept of 'god' through science (understanding the natural world) rather than religion.
Actually this is somewhat like my view. Although I am not convinced there is a sentient creator (Jefferson was somewhat deistic) I think that we can best understand what we call 'god' by understanding that which exists because of 'god' (be it sentient or non-sentient).
To wit, the more we learn through science and logic based on sound evidence, the better we will understand what we mean by 'god'. IMO
Initially, he wrote "...laws of nature & of nature's god..."
The final draft was "...laws of Nature and of Nature’s God..."
I am 99.9% certain that the woman in the clip is referring to the Judeo-Christian God and not nature's god and that is what she means when she says "God-given rights".
Now, she has just as much freedom to be wrong as anyone else in this country. It is no sin, being wrong. It can be unhelpful to hold onto an idea so strongly that one denies the truth when it is evidenced before oneself.
I concur.
Many people don't reaize it, but God was actually one of our Founding Fathers!
Everybody wants something from god, but if god existed it would be like fuck that - I give you this nice planet and you continue to destroy it more and more every day - I’m done giving you idiots anything.
Always amusing for someone who doesn't believe in God to speculate about something they don't believe in will do.
It is like speculating what any fictional character might do. One extrapolates based on the story. Can you not see how someone might speculate on what Darth Vader might do in a given situation? What Harry Potter might do? Star Trek's Data? Jack Reacher? Sherlock Holmes?
So, straight up bullshit and fantasy. Always amusing!
Got it!
Not even close.
[✘]
Always amusing for someone who doesn't believe in God to speculate about something they don't believe in will do.
Not nearly as amusing as watching believers attribute every good and bad thing that happens to them to a god that thinks they are special.
[✘]
Who said I was talking about you? Everyone here knows that there’s nothing even remotely amusing about you.
[✘]
[✘]
Always amusing when someone completely misses the point of a comment they are replying to, repeatedly.
[✘]
[✘]
I am not sure what I believe, more agnostic than atheist ... that said, even as 'fictional characters' go ... God is on a far different level than the fictional characters you use as an example ... Harry Potter has what..? a few million fans .. God has billions of followers.
Just a lil friendly nit pick'n TiG : )
Peace...
Equating God with characters from books or movies is rather silly and done to enflame.
Amen!
The same principle applies. The confusion was on how someone could speculate on what a character might do if one does not believe the character to be real. The answer is that one extrapolates on the narratives established for the character.
It does not matter that God is described as the most powerful entity imaginable and that Harry Potter is a boy wizard. In both cases there is a substantial narrative that gives plenty of guidance for extrapolating a reasonable behavior based on a circumstance (per the narrative).
No it was not meant to inflame. It was meant to explain something that you have stated that you do not understand.
I know what the claim is, thanks.
I’m gonna agree with Texan on this. Whatever you intended, you didn’t have to make it “fictional characters.” It could have been any person, whether real or made up. No one thinks Data from Star Trek is a real person, but billions believe God is real. When you equate God to obvious fictional characters, you are inevitably going to offend believers.
I think Texan’s original point was fair. People who don’t believe in God often speculate - usually disingenuously and negatively, IMO - about what God would or would not do. What Hal expressed in @3 is actually a good example of this.
Especially when God is lumped into the same group as true fictional characters.
I truly suspect some use scenarios like this to get into the usual is God Real debates that almost always end with the expected "prove it".
Thanks for the clarification, but I knew what you were / are saying ,,
Yet my point is that no one believes Harry Potter to be real, whereas roughly 4 billion Muslims and Christians believe God is real .. thus people i.e. believers can reasonably take offense to the extrapolations of a non-believer....and so on and so forth...
Texas did not say he did not understand, he said he was 'amazed' by said behavior
Look at the context:
Now how exactly can this be explained to Texan if I do not use fictional characters to do so? The only way someone would not believe in some character is if they held them to be fictional.
How do you explain to someone how it is possible to speculate about the behavior of an entity they do not believe in?
Well said...
No he said he was amused by it. This is the cliche response by Texan when a non-believer speaks of God. He routinely implies that it does not make sense how anyone can speculate about the behavior of something they do not believe exists.
Further, one does not have to explicitly state "I do not understand" to express a lack of understanding.
[✘]
I do find it amusing when nonbelievers speculate and imagine.
once again, you have misrepresented my words and another poster even pointed it out to you.
I wish you would stop doing that.
What makes you think I need you to explain anything at all to me?
Please keep yor comments about me confined to what I have actually written on THIS article, thanks.
Okay, so you already knew what Texan meant before you chose to explain it to him ..? I am not around enough to know standard responses by posters .. so I was unaware.
P.s... my bad for typing amazed instead of amused...
Argumentum ad populum.
And is it really reasonable to be offended that somebody doesn't think your god is real, and says so? Should the followers of other religions therefore be thought reasonably offended when somebody who follows an Abrahic faith declares they are following the one true god (in either one part or three, depending on which Abrahamic religion)? Are the followers of Abrahamic religions reasonably offended when followers of other Abrahamic religions declare their disbelief in a Messiah, or a prophet, or a trinity?
There are over a billion Hindus worldwide. Should we consider tossing their entire pantheon aside inflammatory?
Who's right? Who is most reasonable at taking offense? Is it up for a vote?
Maybe those who believe should just be secure enough in their beliefs to not be offended by skepticism. If they're not secure enough to not be offended by skepticism, that's a "them" problem, not a "TiG" problem.
I find it reasonable for believers to take offense when nonbelievers go out of their way to mock their beliefs.
Nonbelievers by definition see your god as a fictional character. Do you expect them to do otherwise to protect your feelings?
I never implied they should do a damn thing, but reason tells me that, yes, people get upset when others mock their religion.
I wish believers would mostly keep their beliefs to themselves and nonbelievers would stop talking about things they don't believe in.
Feelings, Sandy??
Really want to go there?
Yes, feelings, Tex. Offense, reasonable or not, is a feeling. Thinking somebody is trying to offend you or believers in general by expressing disagreement with your religion is based on emotion, especially in the lack of evidence that (for example) a particular god is actually anything other than a fictional being.
So do you think that is a reasonable excuse to mock others?
that's nonsense.
How is that mocking anybody?
Sandy, I know what mocking is. people often mock believers. and that is an acceptable form of taunting.
others can see it too.
Are you sure? Saying your god is a fictional being is at worst mocking your god. It is not mocking YOU at all.
Bullshit. I did not misrepresent you in any way.
I directly addressed your comment:
There is nothing to be 'amused' at. It is quite easy and logical for someone to speculate about something they do not believe exists. We do this all the time and my prior post gave specific well-known examples of this. We do it based on the narrative surrounding the entity. One does not have to believe in an entity to make analytical / speculative comments regarding it based on the narrative.
Biblical scholars do this all the time. Unless you have the wrong impression that biblical scholars are theists (about ¼ are not) ... that they all believe that the corpus of theological works they study is all true and that the described God and all other characters necessarily exist. So agnostic atheist biblical scholars are a fine example of individuals who are quite well-versed in the Bible and quite qualified to speculate based on the narrative yet are not convinced that the Bible describes a God that actually exists.
I will not play semantics games with you.
You damn sure did, and someone BESIDES me even called you out on it. Denial is futile, as anyone can READ what I wrote and then your response. I have informed you in the past I won't be letting you get away with that crap, so why persist?
The only way that mocking your god is the same as mocking you personally is if you're god, or claim to be.
As you have made no such claim, nobody is mocking you.
And comparing your god to fictional characters in the absence of evidence of its existence is not mocking.
Nobody is being mocked here. Some folks are choosing to act as if they're victims of mocking. The two are not the same.
How can you mock someone's God and not be also mocking the believer?
You spin while ignoring what I wrote because you cannot rebut what I actually wrote.
Should we be leveling an accusation of taunting at you for being "amused" by Hal's ability to read and comprehend a character's claimed actions and extrapolate from there?
Because the believer is not a god.
Do you hold Christians guilty of mocking Hindus for proclaiming Hindu gods to be false?
I suppose that depends on the manner in which one "says so". When people or their beliefs are mocked, I think that being offended by that can be a natural human response. Certainly there are varying interpretations and views as to what constitutes mockery, but one can be skeptical of a person or a belief without resorting to any tactic that could potentially be considered mockery.
Agreed, that would be reasonable, but at the same time perhaps the manor or expression of said skepticism should also be reasonable?
In my experience, my friend TiG is one who works very hard to be rational and reasonable, especially on this topic. And he provides detailed explanations, or examples, or thought experiments, to make his points. He has absolutely no intent to mock or ridicule, only to discuss and understand. He is agnostic, not a "non-believer" per se. Provide him with a well-reasoned explanation for your beliefs and there should be no "problem" or offense either way.
I am sure sorry you think telling the truth is now spinning.
My post stands---accurately so.
I think many here know what mocking is.
My point is quite easy to understand.
There is nothing amusing or unusual about a non-believer being able to intelligently speculate on how a god (defined by some book such as the Bible or the Qur'an or the Vedas ...) would operated in a situation.
Agnostic biblical scholars do this routinely. You either understand how they are able to do this or you do not. If you do understand then you would realize there is nothing 'amusing' about it; it is entirely rational and logical.
Wouldn't be the first tine.
So was mine. stop misrepresenting what I write.
What is natural (taking offense) is not always reasonable. People have a natural tendency toward knee-jerk reactions. It is wise to reflect on those reactions to determine whether they're reasonable. They may be, or may not be.
The level of self-censorship some seem to expect here ("Don't tell me you don't think my god exists!") is contrary to rational discussion.
More bullshit due to your failure to rebut what I wrote.
There is nothing amusing or unusual about a non-believer being able to intelligently speculate on how a god (defined by some book such as the Bible or the Qur'an or the Vedas ...) would operated in a situation.
Agnostic biblical scholars do this routinely. You either understand how they are able to do this or you do not. If you do understand then you would realize there is nothing 'amusing' about it; it is entirely rational and logical.
No they're not, but mocking someone's beliefs is something that most humans take personal.
While all religions think their God/Gods are the only true ones, as mentioned above @ 3.1.50, the manner in which the message is delivered matters.
I don't have a need to rebut anything you have to say when you start out with a falsehood.
We've been through this before, why persist?
I anxiously await the day someone intelligently does so, because intelligently would be able to do so without mocking.
[✘]
Understood, but I'm not sure that this is what anyone said or inferred in this particular thread. It started with an observation that sometimes those who do not believe in God tend to speculate on what God may or may not do in a given situation or in general. Both of the key participants in that discussion explained their positions on that but nobody told the other what to believe or not believe, or say or not to say. We must also be reasonable in how we interpret what others say, and not read too much into their words or statements.
Agreed, that was my point. We should choose our words carefully and think about them before we utter or write them. The alternate is also true, we should listen carefully and consider the words of others before we react to them, or characterize them as "outrage" or otherwise exaggerate what they might have meant.
Where has anyone done so on this article?
That goes back to it being a "them" problem. But also, nobody's beliefs were mocked here. "I don't agree that your god exists" is not mocking anybody. Not the god, and certainly not the god-believer.
I believe some religions are happy to acknowledge the possibility of the existence of others' gods. But "you're going to Hell if you don't stop worshipping your gods and start worshipping mine" is not respectful by any stretch of the imagination.
What we saw here was somebody choosing to interpret disagreement about the existence of the Abrahamic god as mocking. That's not reasonable, and it is not reasonable to expect people to stay silent about their belief or disbelief in God when discussing an article that mentions god. Those who cannot handle skepticism would be wise to avoid such discussions.
This, from Texan:
certainly seems to advocate for that sort of self-censorship. And when it is not exercised (by nonbelievers, of course), then false accusations of mocking are forthcoming.
The discussion was fairly reasonable, until the false accusations started flying. Nobody said "Good grief, those Christians sure are fools for believing in a god." Somebody compared God to a fictional character as a means of illustrating that anybody who reads makes predictions regarding the characters about which they read, and then the fur started to fly.
I am not convinced that any god exists. That includes the various depictions of god in the Bible and every other known religion. Is that mocking believers?
Now, let's go to the next level. The Bible, in particular the OT, describes a god that is at times ruthless (e.g. Noah's flood), unfair (e.g. Garden of Eden), immoral (e.g. condoning slavery), brutal (e.g. death for male homosexual acts, killing of Midianites, ...), etc.
This is an unflattering critique of the biblical god. It is based on what is written in the Bible. Anyone who believes in a loving god will of course reject this analysis and likely be offended by it. But this analysis is neither mocking the god nor mocking the believer.
Being offended does not necessarily mean one has been mocked.
Contrast this with: 'you are a fool to believe this nonsense'. That, now, would be mocking the believer.
That may very well be a good point IF anyone had said that, but they didn't.
Yes, and just take a gander at how this whole shebang started off
This has been done many times. The key problem is that any argument against the veracity of the Bible (or other holy book) is immediately taken as a personal offense. You can easily find many treatments by agnostic atheist biblical scholars that provide detailed analysis without mocking. For example, one of my favorites is Francesca Stavrakopoulou:
Do some research. Professor Stavrakopoulu is an agnostic atheist.
please stop.
I am giving you excellent information and showing quite clearly how someone who does not believe in the biblical god can offer quite intelligent analysis on same.
One does not have to believe in a god to speak intelligently about same. Further, mere belief in a god does NOT (in any way) make one more qualified to speak of that god than those who are not convinced said god exists.
[✘]
If they don't, reading many of your comments on NT will provide them with excellent examples.
More bullshit. I made no false claim.
What is true, however, is that you are engaging in dishonest theatrics rather than deal with what I wrote.
One need not believe in a god to speak intelligently about same. Mere belief in a god does NOT (in any way) make one more qualified to speak of that god than those who are not convinced said god exists.
See the video I provided where Professor Stavrakopoulu demonstrates my point superbly.
Have you noticed how many times people are yakking about a God they don't believe in ONLY when it is something negative?
When I was an undergrad I knew many Ph.D. students who were outstanding scholars of ancient Christianity, and a very large percentage of them were not Christians.
Does one have to be a pagan to speak intelligently about the pre-Christian beliefs of the Greeks and the Romans?
Sure you did, right there in post 3.1.25, and now you can add this denial of the obvious, also.
as I have told you, I won't be tolerating that any more .
And, as previously told to you, I am not interested until you stop it.
Mmmmmkay....
@3.1.25 was not my post. You continue to ignore my point and instead engage in dishonest theatrics.
One need not believe in a god to speak intelligently about same. Mere belief in a god does NOT (in any way) make one more qualified to speak of that god than those who are not convinced said god exists.
See the video I provided where Professor Stavrakopoulu demonstrates my point superbly.
It appears obvious that i simply don't care about any point you think you have made.
please ✋
I got your post number wrong, it was the next one down, 3.1.26
God is a character from a book.
To some, not to hundreds of millions of others.
But way to completely miss the point!
My post @3.1.26 is dead on accurate:
You denying that you routinely complain about non-believers speaking about a god in whom they do not believe is simply dishonest. Your comment history contradicts your denial.
You have nothing.
I vehemently disagree with that assessment of your words.
as demonstrated, you often seem not to have read my posts.
calling me dishonest is a child-like response.
Your 'point' was that my example of fictional characters to support my explanation of why it is quite logical for a non-believer to speak intelligently about a god in whom they do not believe was meant to inflame.
You are wrong here too. As I noted. My intention was to deal with your oft-stated irrational complaint about non-believers opining on a god. My intention was to illustrate your failure of logic.
[✘]
You've missed the point, again. For believers in the three great monotheistic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and for other religions also, the primary source of knowledge and information about God is from a book.
Which does nothing to prove that God is just a character in some book.
Again with this tired pretense of not understanding how forums work. One need not address someone to enable their comment.
[✘]
G2 did not claim that God is just a character in some book, he stated (correctly) that God is a character in a book.
He is 100% correct in what he wrote.
Do you understand that one need not believe in a god to speak intelligently about same?
Skepticism? No, I think mocking or any of its synonyms is accurate.
I understand just fine.
Is Professor Stavrakopoulu @3.1.70 mocking?
to you.
not to millions of others.
obviously.
Now, you are changing the context of my comment because you have no valid oppositional response. You cannot refute that your source of knowledge and information about God is from a book.
Is that how Christians refer to the Bible now, as just "some book"?
And you again avoid a very clear, direct question. It is obvious why, you cannot answer 'yes' without agreeing with the point I have made and you cannot answer 'no' because that would be obviously wrong.
Exactly, TiG, and thank you.
Isn't that YOUR preferred term?
you are always free to form your own opinions no matter how wrong they may be.
Sputtering nonsense.
God is a character in a book.
So is Napoleon Bonaparte — see War and Peace.
Napoleon Bonaparte is a character in a book (many books, actually). He is not just a character in a book since we know that in addition to being a character in a book, he actually did exist.
Isn't what my preferred term?
Are you trying to put words in my mouth and pretend that I said something other than what I said?
Have you ever complained about that on here... constantly?
You have no room to talk on that subject.I have asked questions which you have ignored. am I to assume. like you do, that you just can't honestly answer them?
nope. try reading it again.
And? The whole thing started off with unreasonable outrage at somebody reading and feeling they understood the motivations and actions of God, and some others taking further exception to TiG's explanation of how reading and understanding characters in a story works
oh, definitely, but not from the direction you think.
And all this time, I have been taught Bonaparte was a real man who lived and died, not a character in a book.
What "it"?
Your comment doesn't make any sense.
Literally nobody on this subthread has made fun of any god. If that is your bar for mocking, it is extremely low, and basically limits participation in discussion to whoever complains the loudest that they're being mocked, even when they aren't.
Read through the posts.
I am sure you will see.
Then you didn't read all the posts.
You yet again either pretend to not understand a very clearly stated notion or simply fail to do so.
Nobody would have a valid excuse to make the comment you did in response to the above.
Quote one that mocks god, let alone one that mocks you. If you're so sure it happened, post an actual quote.
Care to share what post that claim is based on?
STOP IT.
[removed][✘]
It's all here in black and white, Texan. We can all read. Hal made a statement about what he thought God might say, you took exception to him speculating about a being he doesn't believe exists, TiG explained that's how reading books with characters works, and you took greater exception to that. Others piled on. Nobody can point out any quote the mocks your god, let alone you, despite your multiple complaints about being mocked.
Rinse, repeat (except for the first two comments from Hal and you).
Yes, your post is right here
Do you assign terms like unreasonable outrage whenever people disagree?
We will have to disagree about what constitutes mocking.
No, I use terms like unreasonable outrage for when somebody is unreasonably outraged over something that shouldn't lead to outrage.
[deleted][✘]
And TiG explained why it's not really that big a deal. And you decided to take personal offense. For hours. Over somebody who has always maintained that God is fictional comparing God to fictional characters.
Outrageous!
At your suggestion, I read through your posts again and there is nothing to specifically indicate what "my preferred term" is. It could be any number of things. Maybe you are referring to the phrase "no valid oppositional response". Yes, I prefer that term to other possible like phrases.
No, you're not. That's just an excuse for being intentionally obtuse. Nice try, though.
I'm pretty certain that you were taught about Bonaparte from a book, unless you're claiming that one of his friends visited with you to chat about their life together, or maybe that the ghost of Bonaparte himself came to you in a dream and taught you what you know about him. A first hand account from a friend, or the ghost of The Petite Corporal recounting his life story to you would, of course, be sources other than a book.
[deleted][✘]
True, but beyond that, there is historical fiction set during the Napoleonic Wars that features Napoleon as a character, with a fictionalized account of his actions. So he was both a real person who actually existed (which has yet to be proven regarding any god), and a fictionalized character in a book of fiction.
The two are not mutually exlusive.
What does the phrase ' fictional character' vs ' real character' mean to you?
A character in a book can be fictional or real. In both cases, the character is some agent that participates in the narrative. The book describes the character and gives, for the purpose of the book, the defining characteristics and history of the character.
In the case of the Bible the key character is God (in different forms). Other key characters in the OT are Adam, Eve, Moses, Abraham, Noah, etc. Key characters in the NT are Jesus, the disciples, Mary, etc. Some (or all) of these characters may be fictional. Some might be real characters. The distinction of fictional vs. real is of course the heart of much debate.
Here is a list of some key characters in the OT and the NT. Note the use of the word 'character'.
IMO it's those that claim to be the believers and then attempt to enforce on their speculations that are the problem.
[deleted][✘]
If the day comes when I want him to 'explain' something to me. he'll be the first to know.
Right on, it was solely me participating.
Two people tried to explain it all to him besides myself and it apparently fell on deaf ears.
And forgive me for getting ticked off when some non-believers ONLY invoke God when it suits their purposes and they ALWAYS do it in a negative way. I DO find that offensive and I don't care if anyone likes it or not.
I don't, never have, and never will try to convert anyone to any religion or a belief in God.
But that doesn't mean I have to sit quietly while being mocked--and yes, I know you will say no one is mocked.
Apparently you still do NOT understand that God is a character in the Bible just as Allah is a character in the Qur'an. Fictional or not, they are still characters in those respective books.
Look, if it makes you happy to pretend I don't understand things, go for it!
It's an open forum. You comment, he responds. If you comment that something is amusing (with the connotation that your amusement is derogatory in nature), he can explain why that connotation is undeserved.
You can get offended by that, but that doesn't make it mocking.
Sure, so long as you'll forgive nonbelievers for pointing out moments like the video, when some believers would force their beliefs down their throats and claim the Constitution supports them, when they're dead wrong.
You're offended. That doesn't mean you're being mocked. Your choice to be offended is on you.
Yes, I know what forums are AND how they work. Doesn't have anything at all to do with what I wrote, though.
He can 'explain' all he wants, and I am free to reject his comments if I so choose.
As previously noted, you and I disagree what constitutes mocking, so no point in rehashing it yet again.
If one has chosen to read my posts, one finds me saying that is not something I condone, do, or support in any way at all. Yours is a strawman argument, simply arguing a point as if I am in favor of those things, said those things, done those things, or support those things when reading tells us otherwise.
Yes, I explained why.
Again, not rehashing old stuff again.
Sure, it does. You object to him giving an explanation, because you didn't ask for one. However, you introduced the topic, and he is free to explain his views. You are free to reject his comments. Others are free to judge your rejection as valid or invalid.
To give credit where it's due, no, you have not. However, you have advocated for nonbelievers keeping their nonbelief to themselves. That's not a reasonable expectation, especially on articles with a religious topic. Nobody is required to pander to your beliefs. They're even allowed to say negative things about your beliefs.
The next time you comment negatively about somebody's political beliefs, which may well be as important to them as your religious ones are to you, should we complain for hours that you're mocking them? How about if you just disagree with them? Is your threshhold for what is mocking in regards to politics as low as your threshhold for mocking in regards to religion? Judging by your comment history on each, absolutely not.
Don't dish out that which you complain (for hours) about taking.
Here is exactly what I wrote:
I am still free to wish what I want--like others are, right?
I didn't ask anyone to pander to a thing. This type of argument is not working.
If you want people to keep their beliefs to themselves and to stop opining on notions they do not accept, then I recommend you steer clear of public forums. Your wishes are laughably unrealistic and I am sure many are tired of scanning past your incessant whining comments.
You're free to wish what you want. Others are free to disregard your wishes.
When you equate disagreement with mocking, those others are free to point out how ridiculous that is.
Perhaps, but certainly not on the level of demanding, "Don't tell me you don't think my god exists!", as you put it parenthetically.
My response to his statement would have been, "Be careful what you wish for." While I suspect he meant that in general we shouldn't shove our beliefs, or our skepticisms, in each other's faces in a negative manner, I agree that wishing for little or no discussion at all is not a reasonable expectation.
Perhaps a better wish would be that people could talk about such things in a rational and reasonable manner without assuming the worst about the other person or their position. One can speak glowingly of their beliefs without foisting them on others, and others can express skepticism about those beliefs without mockery or being demeaning. And equally as important, we can refrain from jumping to the conclusion that one is foisting their beliefs on us simply by talking about them, or that others are mocking our beliefs simply by expressing a well-reasoned skepticism. This wish I think is a more reasonable expectation of adults engaging in such a discussion.
That would be a better wish. However, he has specifically said that he is personally being mocked by TiG comparing his god to a fictional character. He said it was "done to enflame", and then went on for hours pushing that accusation. He is aware that inflammatory statements are forbidden here. At a certain point, there is no reason to try to spin his words into a less perjorative meaning than that which they carry, in their totality. He has made accusations that, if anybody else agreed, would result in the censorship of TiG's words, while simultaneously saying
Oddly enough, I do not recall hours of complaints coming from his quarter when some members have engaged in proselytization, and I recall quite a few derogatory remarks made by him in regards to those who hold liberal political views. Those remards were made specifically about the intelligence or honesty of those holding those beliefs, and were not limited to expressing simple disagreement with those beliefs.
He asks for much better behavior from others than he is willing to engage in, himself.
There has been a concerted effort to twist my words into things I have never said.
Here is an example of what I believe most people would concede is taunting or mocking those who believe in God, and I know it isn't from THIS article, but is used merely as a prime example of what "doesn't happen here"
Now, some may claim that this remark isn't inflammatory, but I think we all know better.
Bullshit!
You repeated your oft-cited declaration that it makes no sense for those who do not believe in a god to make critical comments regarding a particular god.
You keep making comments like these as if you do not understand that one need not believe in a god to provide intelligent commentary on same. I explained (yet again) why this is so:
The intelligent commentary would be based on how the god is defined in its defining book.
I then later noted that about 25% of biblical scholars are agnostic atheists. These are people whose careers are to analyze the Bible. They clearly are highly educated in the Bible and its historical context. Yet you would find it 'amusing' if these individuals opined on how the god of the Bible might react in a situation because they do not believe.
You refuse to be corrected and have spent days now twisting and turning in a futile attempt to appear to be right.
Please just stop.
Again you fail to understand how forums work. You are perpetuating this thread. If you want me to stop replying to your comments then stop making comments.
Will you ever stop pretending people don't understand something when they disagree with you?
That is just so weak, man.
A fine example. You ask me to stop commenting and when I note that you are perpetuating this (with everyone) by continuing to make comments and that all you need do is stop commenting, you pen yet another dishonest, antagonistic comment.
Not a single thing dishonest in MY post.
What a ludicrous claim!
Since this is going absolutely nowhere, go ahead and take the last word.
That would be a hearty hell yes!
Perhaps referring to mythical or spiritual entities in religious texts as literary instead of fictional characters might spare us forty eight hours of frantic gotcha trolling next time, but I doubt it...
Of course everyone understood your meaning and intent but it left the door open for Tex to quibble. What I read in the interminable thread above is utterly ridiculous on multiple levels and another example of why our participation here dwindles. Pure boredom...
Moving goalposts.
Also, that comment mocks only those believers who claim to know God's will and attribute natural disasters to his anger. But only when they affect blue states, of course.
It does not mock all believers, nor even belief in general.
I moved nothing.
it IS mocking or taunting.
Yes, you did. You have repeatedly claimed that you have been mocked on this thread. When asked to deliver quotes, you went to a different article entirely, to find a quote that mocks a specific subset of Christians. If you are not the type to declare that natural disasters are the result of God's wrath, then you were not mocked.
No, I simply didn't.
And with that, you may take the last word.
Don't worry. It looks like it's over.
Over? What are the MAGAs doing now? I can only imagine...
And that's the key isn't it? Done repeatedly it makes future fruitful discussion damn near impossible because all trust is lost that an honest discussion can even be had. We run into this every day don't we, either in these online forums, political discussions, hell even in our churches? How do we fix this?
I'd say the first step is to make damn sure we don't fall into the same trap ourselves, and if we do on occasion (nobody's perfect), correct it as soon as we can. We can strive to set an example and demonstrate at all times, despite the history we might have with someone or their "friends", that we can focus on the moment and engage in the sort of conversational behavior we ask or want others to adopt. I've been accused of wishful thinking in this regard, and sometimes of lecturing, and perhaps I'm guilty as charged. But I see no other solution or pathway to productive conversation, even with those with whom productive discussion has been difficult in the past.
Thank you for the discussion here Sandy, I always appreciate your thoughtful perspective.
Emphatically.
I'd say that pretty much everybody here did maintain a fair degree of decorum.
As far as productive discussion, I'm not sure there's any to be had when one side is determined to parlay disagreement into persecution. I think that when that happens, the best we can hope for is to expose the tactic for what it is - an attempt to squelch discussion.
Indeed...
That depends on ones definition of reasonably .. ..? Do not Shia and Sunni Muslims represent the epitome of taking offense to ones chosen beliefs, they at times kill each other .. and both sides believe in the same one true God.
Christians are beheaded and stoned in some places for their Abrahamic faith. There was the Charlie Hebdo attack over a cartoon of the prophet Muhammad, granted those that meted out the brutality are seen as radical.
Agreed, yet individuals can be secure in their beliefs and still find the comparison of their God to fictional movie characters offensive. I never said it was a TiG problem.
Peace ... I am out of here!
Excellent examples of some people being unreasonably offended over disagreement regarding religious beliefs. We can add to the list the example in this thread.
And yeah, people can find that comparison offensive, but they are no more reasonable in their offense than those who take offense to cartoons making fun of Muhammed.
Well that is the problem we agnostic atheists deal with. We cannot express our opinions on gods without someone taking offense.
Remember how this started:
This was matter-of-fact commentary in response to Texan's oft-repeated jibe that it is somehow 'odd' for those who do not believe in a god to opine on a god.
It's actually really easy. You just say "i don't believe in god's existence" without demeaning believers by calling him just a character in a book.
To me, the Christian God (and every other literary god) is no more real than a character in a book.
If that demeans believers then pretty much any statement that connotes 'to me, no god exists' will demean believers.
Ridiculing someone for believing in a particular god is not right: e.g. "you are a fool to believe that crap". However, stating that one does not believe in any god, making arguments that support that position, etc. is intellectual discourse. Some will be offended, but that is their problem.
Same applies to politics. People are offended by disagreement.
This is reality, wear a cup.
That seems to be the point Texan was making, TiG. That is, that what you describe here is precisely what Hal was not doing. Rather, he simply projected what he himself would do if he were God. That's pretty obvious.
True. Again, though, those same scholars would simply say Hal is just projecting what he would do if he were God and not what an actual God would do. It wasn't "intelligent speculation" based on any book, that's for certain.
People who don’t believe in God often speculate - usually disingenuously and negatively, IMO - about what God would or would not do. What Hal expressed in @3 is actually a good example of this.
Speculate? A football player scores a touchdown and gives the credit to god, meanwhile a baby dies of malnutrition at the very same instant. The billions of people writing this off as “god works in mysterious ways” are just fucking wrong.
There's nothing to suggest much less demonstrate God is anything more than just a character in a book.
Meanwhile, some believers claim God exists or is actually more than just a character in a book, but never demonstrate that to be the case.
I have no need to prove God exists any more than you can prove He doesn't.
Ah, the inevitable "prove it" shtick from non believers.
I am quite content believing in God as you are in not believing in Him.
Watch out, next thing you know you will be accused of unreasonable outrage!
The one making the affirmative claim bears the burden of proof. As it stands, there is no proof or evidence for any god. Just empty claims about a character in a book.
Yes, people believe all sorts of silly things. But belief doesn't equal fact.
As I previously stated and you ignored, I have no need to prove God exists to satisfy you.
I am secure in my belief and a nonbeliever won't alter that.
You are quite free to reject God.
Still needing proof isn't my problem, it is yours.
Oh, goody!
Another non mocking statement!
Do you think if I had used a word other than amused, this would end?
Just a factual statement. Unless one can demonstrate to the contrary.
Not at all. The lack of proof only shows the claimant is talking BS.
And as I said before, people can believe whatever silly thing they want. Belief doesn't equal fact.
Neither does non belief equal fact!
Amazing, isn't it!
So you not being able to prove God doesn't exist is the same bullshit!
Prove it is fact!
I guess the major difference between us is I am content and secure in my belief and faith in God, and you don't seem to be the same in your skepticism.
God is a character mentioned in a book. There is nothing to show God is anything but a character. Facts!
Wrong as usual.
A logical fallacy. One cannot prove something doesn't exist.
Whomever said it was? Its all about the evidence, of which there is none for any god/s.
So it devolves into exactly as I predicted two days ago, the discussion inevitably is reduced to nothing more than nonbelievers saying the usual, expected "prove it!!!!"
Much like believers making the usual bs claims or assertions, which invites challenge anyway.
Psychoanalyzing Hal now, Drakk?
You know what the scholars would say too? A bit ironic that you are here speaking of what others would say while claiming Hal was just projecting.
God exists to me.
He doesn't to you.
Okay.
Yeah yeah, and kids have imaginary friends too. What's your point?
The idea if you can't definitively prove something to be the case it is fact that it is not the case is ridiculous. Yet some folks keep throwing it out there as fact anyway
The idea if you can't definitively prove something to be the case it is fact that it is not the case is ridiculous. Yet some folks keep throwing it out there as fact anyway
I love all the non mocking that doesn't happen here!
The point is I am fine with my beliefs and just fine with yours. You seem to have trouble with that concept!
Glad you're happy.
That's nice. Not that I mentioned my beliefs.
If one cannot prove their assertions, there is no reason to take them seriously, much less as fact. So it's clearly not the proverbial case then.
Take them seriously as you please but lack of proof does not mean it is a fact that their belief is wrong.
People seem to think just because they call something a fact that it is a fact.
You missed the point. Gordy's point is that a claim of certainty bears the burden of proof. Belief is not the same as fact. People can believe anything, but when they assert it as fact, they bear the burden of proof (or at least persuasive evidence).
No, that isn't mocking!
Exactly!
Notice how nonbelievers always want proof of God?
well, at least that makes one of us!
And Gordy never once suggested that a lack of proof means the belief is wrong.
The lack of proof (persuasive evidence) means that the belief is indeed not established as anything more than a belief. It is not an established fact, it is not even credible. It is a mere belief.
If someone states that Brahma (Hindu creator god) exists yet cannot deliver any credible evidence (much less proof) of same, would you consider that belief to be a fact or even credible just because the Hindu claims it is a fact?
No, of course not, you would consider it (appropriately) as merely a belief until such time that persuasive evidence exists to justify it as factual.
Actually I didn't miss the point but thanks for your comment.
Thanks for your comment clarifying what someone else said
It is funny that they seem to have a problem with people that have a belief without definitive scientific proof and dismiss the belief as ridiculous.
But to each his (or her own), I hope it makes them feel better.
Yeah, you did.
Gordy's point is that a claim of certainty bears the burden of proof. Belief is not the same as fact. People can believe anything, but when they assert it as fact, they bear the burden of proof (or at least persuasive evidence).
Rebut that if you can.
it is the same old thing, disagree and then you just don't understand!
No, I didn't. Nor do I feel the need to rebut or prove anything to you.
When a flat-Earther expresses his belief that the Earth is flat, do you accept the belief as valid or reject it due to the lack of persuasive evidence?
When a Jehovah's Witness claims that blood transfusions violate God's will and that God will deny them eternal salvation if the transfusion is done, do you accept the belief as valid or reject it due to the lack of persuasive evidence?
When a YEC claims the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, do you accept the belief as valid or reject it due to the lack of persuasive evidence?
You cannot do so. Nobody can. This is basic logic.
Right from the Biden book or his Bidenomics. People just don't understand why Bidenomics is great.
to me, it displays a great deal of anxiety about their own beliefs.
otherwise, why be so concerned because others think differently?
There is a big difference between can't and don't want to.
But believe what you want even though you can not prove it is true.
I respect their belief as their belief and don't tell them they are wrong or that I need them to prove anything to me.
What?
Belief without proof?
How illogical!
That's probably because you are secure in your own beliefs and mature enough to allow others the same freedom without harassment.
demand you rebut, then says you nor anyone else can.
logical?
Incorrectamundo. Change probably to definitely.
You respect the belief that the Earth is flat, that blood transfusions damn the soul, that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old?
If a YEC told you that you are wrong in your belief that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old and that it really is less than 10,000 years old according to the Bible, would you obsequiously bow and back away with all smiles, or would you ask for evidence supporting the 10,000 year old claim?
Do you not see a need for extreme claims to be supported by persuasive evidence?
I stand corrected!
I respect people to believe as they see fit without telling them their beliefs are wrong and I need persuasive evidence for them to continue to believe what they wish.
Same as I said in the comment you responded to.
That comment is mocking people who don't share your beliefs.
That is a typical straw man argument. Not one single commentator on here has expressed "concern" because others think differently.
that got twisted below.
I forgive you.
Okay, guess people will just have to accept it that way if they choose to.
I'm okay with that, as I have no control over them or their thinking.
You dodged the question (as expected):
If a YEC told you that you are wrong in your belief that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old and that it really is less than 10,000 years old according to the Bible, would you obsequiously bow and back away with all smiles, or would you ask for evidence supporting the 10,000 year old claim?
Do you respect the belief that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old?
Do you respect the belief that the Earth is flat?
In reality, when an exceptional claim is made, most rational people will seek persuasive evidence in support of the claim before they respect it (much less accept it as fact).
What a novel approach!
I wish many more would emulate you in that regard!
I answered the question just fine but you reject the answer (as expected).
But just to try one more time before telling you I am done with today's merry go round. I would NOT ask for evidence. They can claim what they want and I can believe as I want. I respect people to believe what they want (as long as they are not hurting someone or doing something illegal). I have never said, alluded to, or hinted at I respect or agree with the belief.
Hopefully this third time of explaining my position will get through.
So thanks for your comments but I am done.
There seems to be a disconnect between respecting people to believe as they wish and respecting the belief.
They are obviously two completely separate things but some seem to feel the need to show superiority when in reality what people believe rarely has a direct impact on them.
He didn't write that.
Not for the right fighters of the world who feel their way is the only way. They will badger the piss out of you trying to get you to conform to their way of thinking.
you are correct, unfortunately.
See 3.1.238
I know, I know........sigh.
Unfortunately it seems both political parties are moving in that direction
When someone on NT makes a claim that you do not believe is correct, you will not challenge them to support their claim? You will just obsequiously move on?
When the Jan 6th committee was active did you not argue that the proceedings were of no value ... that you needed persuasive evidence (per a trial) before you would acknowledge wrongdoing by Trump? That is a call for persuasive evidence supporting a claim.
You would have everyone believe that you never challenge claims you find to be wrong?
Where did you read that, what post?
It is a good thing I bought some advil today
hope you got the economy sized bottle.
Hell! The NT MAGAs will challenge facts they know to be true.
We are constantly challenged to defend what we saw and heard with our own eyes and ears while it was actually happening!
See the last sentence in 3.1.236
Sounds like the mostly peaceful protest claims during the summer of love midnight shopping sprees
Prove that there is not a divine ham sandwich buried on the dark side of the moon. If you can’t, then why can’t I gather a giant cult of people who do believe that and demand public schools teach children all about it? As Gordy said, proving something doesn’t exist is a logical fallacy - and an extremely amateurish one at that.
Feel free to recruit your cult members!
Is that with or without swiss cheese? If it was truly divine it would have to have swiss.
One should not posit mere belief as fact. Without proof (or at the verybleast, evidence) there's no reason to accept belief or a claim as fact. There's nothing to affirm said belief as correct. It's just a belief and nothing more.
TiG understood and got it correct.
Yes. That is what being agnostic means. Were they presented with proof of the existence of God, they would no longer be non-believers. Belief without clearly observable fact or evidence to support it is called faith. There is certainly nothing wrong with having faith, but some folks need more than faith in order to believe, and there is nothing wrong with that either. Perhaps it is a good thing that they want proof of God, as it shows that their mind is not completely closed to that which you accept on faith.
But I am under no obligation to provide it to them or for them.
some tend to forget that.
Yes, yes it is illogical.
They never said you were under any such obligation. They simply asked if you have proof to support your belief so that they might understand the basis of that faith. Certainly it seems to me to be a good thing that they are seeking to understand and to know.
If you had the proof they seek, why would it feel like an obligation or a burden to share it with them? I for one might not be able to provide the sort of proof they seek, but I am happy to share why my faith in the teachings of Christ is important to me if asked. I have had such discussions with TiG and others here before and am happy to report that we are still friends. Good friends in fact.
Now some others here use language that is clearly intended to mock or demean those who believe on faith. Some have seen up close the bad things that may have happened in the name of God or atrocities perpetrated by those claiming to be of faith, and that is what forms the basis of their opinions. We need to understand that, and not be offended by it but rather do what we can to show the good side of our faith and to help correct that which leaves a stain on our Church. Anyway, that's just my take on all this.
Thanks for pointing it out.
Surprised I am.
Happy to be of service.
In my case, I am an agnostic atheist because none of the gods of which I am aware have persuasive narratives. The opposite, actually.
But here is a very important factor, I do not rule out the possibility of a creator entity — even a sentient creator entity. I do not, thus, rule out the existence of a god. While it is difficult for me to get past the notion that the most powerful, complex, sentient entity just happens to exist, if I put that aside I could see how a sentient entity of enormous power could create many universes in a complex multiverse with all sorts of life forms thinking they are special.
To me, the most logical concept of god is that of a non-sentient creator. God, to me, is that which enabled our existence. God might very well be some undefined form of 'energy' that is primitive in nature but interacts with itself and, in effect, produces emergent properties (such as a universe).
This conception of god is absolutely consistent with everything that we can perceive. The notion of biological and cosmological evolution fit right in with this. As we explore particle physics we continue to see exotic forms of energy that could very well be composable into more primitive substances. Maybe string theory is right and everything is nothing more than vibrating strings of 'energy'.
In contrast, almost every (99%) concept of a god is some anthropomorphic notion that attempts to explain natural phenomena. The narratives are replete with obvious logical and factual flaws ... exactly what we would expect of narratives produced by human imaginations. I remain unpersuaded by these narratives.
To wit, a creator certainly exists. But it is not clear that this creator is sentient (or even an individual). And it is quite clear that the many properties that human beings have invented to define their god (e.g. omnipotence, omniscience, ...) are simply not true due to logical contradictions.
As an aside, there is an intermediary. If everything is an emergent form of 'energy', then a sentient entity might indeed emerge from this 'energy' and evolve into something of great power. Indeed, powerful enough to create a universe. Thus our creator might indeed by a sentient entity, but it would still have a 'creator' that is non-sentient. 'God' might be an incredibly powerful, advanced alien entity.
Because you can't. At least have the spine to admit it.
It isnt possible to "prove" that God exists, that is why they call it religious "faith". Tig knows that, Gordy knows that, you know that , and all atheists know that. So why the long drawn out merry go round ?
Atheists generally demand the default position, which means we can assume there is no God until its existence is proven, and all the burden is on the believers. I completely reject that position. The burden of "proof" is on both sides.
These long long long discussions going over the same ground for hundreds of comments is dreary.
Agreed.
Do any of these arguments ever really end with anything more than the obligatory "prove it"?
The burden of proof (or good evidence) is held by those who make the claim.
There is no burden of proof for someone (e.g. an agnostic atheist) stating that they are not convinced a god exists. That is not a claim.
There is no burden of proof for someone who simply states they believe a god exists. That is not a claim, it is an expression of a belief. (Faith.)
There is a burden of proof for someone who insists that a particular god exists. That is a claim.
Nope, but thanks for playing
These types of discussions have been going over the same ground for thousands of years. What shall we do with your observation that they are dreary?
How do you know that? Perhaps in many thousand more years we will have been able to prove that something like God exists. Whether it turns out how TiG imagines or how others might imagine, who knows, but only the continued questions, searches, collaboration or "merry-go-round" will get us there, if we don't kill each other off first.
Correct but you forgot there is a burden of proof for someone who insists that there is no God. That is a claim.
Billions of people don't write these things off as "God working in mysterious ways", especially since there's nothing mysterious about the scenario you provided. Athletes giving glory to God is never wrong. Yes, some pray and ask God to let their team win but I don't think many actually believe God is going to take a side, but who knows?
As for the baby dying of starvation, we all understand why that is and it isn't the fault of God. It is ours. If you recall the Genesis story, God made us to tend earth. That would mean the failure is ours, not God's. Because our nature is exactly what God says it is, we are more concerned with our personal comfort and desires than someone on the other side of the planet we will never meet. It's more important that we spend our time standing up for the rights of the deluded than making sure no one on earth starves to death. It's more important that we do all we can to bend reality around each individual's "truth" than looking out for the real world welfare of each other.
Yes there is a burden of proof for someone who insists there is no god. Did someone make that claim?
I will assume then that this means you agree with my comment.
Well, that's false. There's tons of stuff that suggests God. Many arguments, such as those listed on Wiki page.
Untrue. As I said in the previous post, there's lots of arguments that demonstrate or give reasons that belief in God is the most logical conclusion. Here's the again.
No evidence? Define evidence, please. And do not waste our time on a definition that only applies to the physical world.
I think the world would be much better off if people would stop believing in narratives invented by their ancestors and instead kept their beliefs grounded on what we can observe. Right off the bat, we would not have 'God hates fags' and horrible, bloody, endless struggles over who owns the 'Holy land'. Among many other things.
Some people will believe in a creator (entirely abstract, known only by what we can observe in nature). Others will not be convinced that the natural world necessarily resulted from a sentient creator. That works.
I could argue FOR those who believe in a sentient creator by noting the remarkable perceived order of things (taking an anthropomorphic viewpoint ... a flawed view). It is certainly appealing to think of a creator because that is how we get our inventions. We know that cars did not simply emerge ... they were designed and built. And if people simply believed that 'there must be something great out there' and left it at that, I think that would be sensible. (That is my wife's position, for example.)
And for those who are not convinced, the argument in support of their position is easy. There is no evidence that what we see came from a sentient entity. History is replete with examples of natural phenomena being attributed to various gods only to have much of that resolved by the advancement of science.
Those who claim that a god exists and those who claim that no god exists do not have a good argument. They should reconsider what they are claiming.
[removed] [✘] His argument relies on the fact that there's no direct physical evidence of God Himself. It relies on the belief that only the material exists, a thing he cannot prove, but hopes no one else will notice. In other words, like all materialists, he arbitrarily defines a space called "reality" and demands that the question of God be argued within the limits materialists establish.
" God" could appear over NYC in a gigantic golden cloud and boom out a commanding voice and turn Manhattan into dust, or paradise, and there will still be many many saying that wasnt God, that was some other unknown phenomena or the work of aliens. If the earth was vaporized and a heavenly voice claimed it to be the work of God there would still be many denying it.
It isnt possible to prove God exists, and it isnt possible to prove God doesnt exist. God is supernatural , which means it originates from outside this nature (existence). Thats just the way it is.
Evidence as established and accepted by scientific criterion. What else is there besides the physical world?
Your snide remark aside, we know the physical/material universe exists. What is lacking is evidence for anything other than the physical/material world and you have offered nothing to that effect.
That is quite an expanse to the concept of evidence.
So you want to submit as evidence things like a person being convinced that they 'know' god in a spiritual way?
Evidence typically is that which can be independently verified. If the evidence cannot be independently verified it is indistinguishable from a falsehood.
Yay, spectral evidence. That's how innocent people were executed for witchcraft.
I have never, ever, even once, tried to convince anyone of the existence of God. It simply doesn't matter to me if they do or not, I do and that is enough for me. Therefore, I have no 'burden of proof" to satisfy anyone.
Just so long as they don't say they don't believe in his existence.
Unfortunately, every god (necessarily) interacts with reality as part of the narrative. It is inevitable, really, because if not for its impact on the natural world, the god would have no meaning.
And I suggest you not make things personal.
When you're right, you're right.
Because not everything can be subjected to such criterion, even concerning everyday issues, as you well know. Like, does A actually love B? Add in what is supernatural, and your criterion is useless except as a tool for establishing inference.
But JR, would you not also be one of those who look at that relatively minor display of power (relative to the creation of everything) and see that as insufficient evidence of the greatest possible entity ... the creator of everything?
Yes, we know.
Or 'God' is simply an invention of human imagination. There is no distinguishing mere imagination from a supernatural entity.
I won't rehash all this with you so I will simply say your comment is totally off base and false.
I'll leave it there and you may take the last word.
It was not snide. It was simply a statement of fact, as you prove with this statement.
God is just a belief, which is the exact opposite of logical.
You have yet to prove anything beyond the physical or material.
God deserves just as much of the blame if he created us. Some think god should get a free pass no matter what, but the buck stops at god.
God can neither be proven or disproven, which is why these discussions are nothing more than entertainment.
Then it can be dismissed. The scientific criteria for evidence is the best standard there is. Anything else is weaker and has greater chance of influence from personal bias, narrative, or emotion. Speaking of which, love is a chemical reaction within the brain which can be measured and observed. It's all physical at its core. Nothing mystical or supernatural about it.
that sounds like quite a stretch.
I can believe that God created the universe. I cant prove it, but there is nothing "illogical " about it.
No. In such cases that only convinces the individual and would be insufficient. The argument from fine tuning would be a different matter. While the argument does not prove God, God can be inferred from it. That argument alone would also be insufficient but taken together with all the other arguments where God can be inferred, the case for God becomes pretty strong, in my opinion.
I can agree with what is written here but not with how you intended it to be understood. Millions of people have independently verified that God exists. Hence their conversion to Christianity. Atheists with careers in science, for instance.
As I have noted before, it depends on how one defines 'God'.
I maintain that the god of the OT cannot possibly exist as defined by the OT. That god does not exist as defined. Its omniscience is a fatal flaw in the definition.
But here is a god, by a different definition, that absolutely does exist. God = 'that which enabled our existence'.
I suspect many if not most people in the USA think of God more in the abstract. (At least far more abstract than their religion of choice teaches.) They would not try to defend the God of the Bible (as Drakk does) but would rather claim that they simply believe there is a sentient creator. This is an abstract (and logically safe) way to operate. When people go beyond that and start adding attributes to an abstract notion of god they make their concept less believable (and less likely). A 'creator' has a reasonably strong supporting argument. A 'creator' who set up Adam & Eve for failure, who is omniscient yet surprised and angered, etc., who destroyed all life on the planet (spare Noah's lifeforms), etc. become less likely and less believable as attributes are added. The Bible has added many attributes to the notion of god and has rendered it impossible as defined.
Thanks, Gordy, but I don't need you to prove what I said in 3.1.280 any further. I think everyone's got it by now.
Given our current inflation, cheap entertainment is a good thing.
Why?
Ok, so you have no proof and any assertion or inference of the existence of god, thr supernatural, outside reality, and whatever lacks any validity and can be summarily dismissed.
Yes, it is illogical. It's no different than saying the universe was created by fairies, leprechauns, or gnomes. Believe whatever you want. But there is simply no evidence. Belief is basically wishful thinking.
I dont believe that "fine tuning" is all that strong of an argument for the existence of God. The fine tuning argument is sort of like saying "water is wet". Without the physical parameters that exist, nothing would exist. That doesnt mean the parameters are a divine instruction, it just means they exist. Does water freeze at 32 degrees because "God" wants it to, or just because that's the way it is.
The great metaphysical philosophers throughout history would disagree with you.
You’ve got Maddona on your side:
Cause we are living in a material world
And I am a material girl
You know that we are living in a material world
And I am a material girl
If God created us, that includes all flaws and resulting consequences of it. It's even more egregious as God knew in advance what would happen and didn't do anything to correct any flaws. Assuming one believes God is omnipotent and omniscient.
So what? Philosophers like to think about things, but they do not prove anything or offer evidence. That's for science.
I didnt say they prove anything, but your implication that these philosophers were illogical is ludicrous.
Philosophy is little more than mental masturbation.
If the world was "perfect" no one would know it. The idea that there is no God because there is suffering is a child like view.
Gods purposes , should they exist, are simply beyond our understanding.
What flaws are you referring to?
Again, what flaws?
People who think science explains "everything" are emotionally deprived. From the beginning of humanity's existence people have believed there is a "higher" power. Why isnt that simply instinctive? Of course, you cannot prove that it is not, yet you act like you can.
I once thought so, too. Then I went and found out what it really is. You should try looking into it. It would help you make better arguments.
You said the "failure is ours, not gods." So if we "failed," logically that means we're flawed.
What makes you think I haven't? Thought experiments are fun, but don't really answer anything.
So, you don't think God can be inferred, for instance, from the argument from fine tuning? Why not?
He asked specifically "what flaws".
Seemed really, really clear in just those two little words.
Who ever said science explains everything? The need to believe or use belief as an explanation for anything is emotionally driven and/or otherwise irrational. It's an attempt to satiate our collective curiosity or questions without actually providing facts behind it.
How convenient. That's just a cop out answer. The idea of a supposedly "loving" God causing or allowing suffering and blaming us for it is quite illogical.
No, he doesn't.
Gordy has never said he can prove there is no higher power.
Dismissing your unevidenced claim of a higher power is not an attempt to prove that there isn't one. It's just the realization that claims with no proof are just that - claims. Unsubstantiated ones.
He said we failed, not God. Failure means there's a flaw. But God created us, right? So we were created with a design flaw. Therefore it's God's fault.
I always thought that philosophy was the talk on a cereal box and religion is the smile on a dog.
Fine tuning is a bs argument based on religion.
Again, you run from the question.
What flaws?
Or we, by our own decision, tried to do something we weren't created to do. If we were created to perfectly execute our purpose but did not by our own choice, how is it God's fault? By allowing us the freedom to choose? Would that be a fault?
But that is a natural argument, Drakk.
The fine-tuning argument essentially posits that since the likelihood that our universe would emerge with the exact properties that we observe is so infinitesimally small (based on the extremely large ranges of each factor and the number of factors) that the universe must have been specifically engineered (tuned) by a sentient entity. This argument of course rests on an anthropomorphic foundation. That is, it assumes that the universe was created to be habitable for life as we define it. But that is a flawed premise. If our universe had manifested with different parameters, it might have resulted in different creatures (say, silicon rather than carbon based) who think the universe was designed just for them and are amazed at how fine-tuned their universe must be to accomplish that.
The fine-tuning observation illustrates just how remarkable it is that any life (as we define life) exists. By the same token, it is remarkable that any one of us exists. You exist because one of your father's sperm cells fertilized one of your mother's egg cells. The conditions had to be right for fertilization to take place. But far more amazing is this. Each ejaculation delivers between 40 million to 1 billion sperm cells. Only one of them (at best) fertilizes the egg. And each ejaculation delivers a completely different set of sperm cells (and each month a completely different egg cell). Then we have the number of eggs (typically one per month) that must be available for fertilization. Then we add to that the staggering unlikelihood that your father and mother would meet and have sex. How easy would it have been for them to be with different people?
Think about this. It is extremely unlikely that you (anyone) exists rather than all the other possible entities that missed out due to circumstances. Does that mean that the specific pairing of your unique sperm cell and your unique egg cell was engineered ... fine-tuned?
The have independently verified a belief. That is meaningless (and is argumentum ad populum).
Cereal which is too sugary and the dog which wets the carpet. Lol
Hey, nobody is perfect.
Exactly, like what was before the Big Bang?
Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'
You gotta have somethin' if you wanna be with me
Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'
You gotta have somethin' if you wanna be with me
That is pretty harsh. And I do not believe Gordy thinks that science explains everything. Rather, that it has shown to be the best method for explaining observable phenomena.
If we weren't created to do something, we couldn't do it. If we did do something we weren't created to do, that's a design flaw. Or at the very least, outside the intent of the design. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, then there is no such thing as choice.
Already answered. Or do you not understand a failure is a flaw?
I think that if you looked into it you'd find it's a bit more than that.
Exactly! 👍
“…to perfectly execute our purpose but did not by our own choice, how is it God's fault?”
Impossible to rectify the ‘gift’ of free will while simultaneously being held accountable by a vindictive visage.
Again, what makes you think I haven't?
The honest answer is, we do not know. Full stop. No need to inject God or the supernatural to "answer" the question.
Next will come the argument that free will can not exist if God is omniscient.
Not in steel cut oats.
It’s nature’s way of telling to let the dog more frequently.
Still not answering.
Oats are bland.
Cats are less maintenance.
Still not listening.
Okay, but what does logic tell you?
No, free will cannot exist if the future is knowable. This is true even if no entity knows the future.
Listening for an answer not forthcoming.
Right on cue, as predicted.
Same old stuff.
Knew it was coming from a mile away!
Of course, so consider adding, cinnamon, dried or fresh fruit or nuts.
True, but dogs were scientifically much more important to our evolution than cats.
The argument that free will doesnt exist is meaningless. Human beings experience free will every second they are alive. Saying free will doesnt exist cannot disrupt that experience.
Cinnamon is fine, but by itself doesn't help much. Too much becomes overpowering. Fruit is better by itself.
Dogs evolved because of humans.
Answer was already given. Clearly you didn't listen.
It's partial free-will. Our human free-will is curtailed by a great many aspects of daily life.
We don't know. There is no evidence.
If. But it didn't. And we don't know that, had something else ensued, some other life, let alone intelligent, would have resulted. That's kind of the point. If has less validity that what we actually observe, like if there are many universes are an if. Because there are if's out there that can't be tested, and therefore not falsified doesn't detract from what we have.
However, I recognize the point, which is why I said the argument from fine tuning by itself was insufficient. I went on to say that when you add all the other arguments put forth that also infer God, the case for God grows pretty strong, a point you did not address.
I would say they have become convinced of a fact, independently.
Not to the individual. Recall to what I had replied:
As I said, I agreed with what you wrote, just not how you meant it to be taken. As I said earlier:
I was not using it in such a manner as argument ad populum. I simply stated that millions of people independently verify, to their satisfaction, that belief in God is logical and justified.
Dogs enabled humans to stop being nomadic and settle down. Dogs protected humans at this vulnerable transition from nomadic to settled life.
Dogs, our first domesticated animal, did work that humans did not have the strength or stamina to do: guarding, herding, hunting, pulling sleds.
Their work allowed humans time to build and think and create without having to focus every moment on the next meal or the next threat.
Damn, that’s a significant void.
I certainly understand where you are coming from on that, although people have been hating and killing each other for millennia, even before the formation of ancient polytheistic religions (which were based on interpretations of what they could observe) and more recently the major monotheistic religions came into play. In fact, most modern religions are rooted historically in attempts of leaders/philosophers/elders to improve the dire state of social order at the time and over time develop a more agreeable moral or social framework, and this grew to include providing services to house, feed, clothe, educate, and heal people as populations grew and such humanitarian services were needed to preserve the order and well-being of the communities. Much of the humanitarian effort continues to this day although it doesn't often make the front page news. It is difficult to envision what our societies may have looked like without various religions and the good intentions that they most certainly put into action over the centuries. But like anything else involving large groups of humans or organizations, even good intentions can sometimes become too rigid, bureaucratic, overly tribal, and even corrupted.
This is why we need to have these discussions, to return the focus to the good we can do as a society whether we follow a religious doctrine or not. For me, my faith is more about how I can follow the teachings of Jesus as best I can and help advance the good that my Church can do for the community, and less about strict adherence to its traditions and dogma. The only claim I make is that I think that the core teachings attributed to Christ have important societal value, whether he ever really existed or not.
How pathetic. I responded to your post. You brought free will up. Just pathetic.
It is pointless explaining this. You always come back with the same argument: free will exists because I believe I experience it daily.
And I have not stated that free will does not exist. I stated that IF the future is knowable THEM free will cannot exist.
knowable by who?
God could know the future and human beings could still have the experience of free will.
you choose to eat a hamburger tonight instead of a vegetable salad. People who argue there is no free will will say your choice was predetermined . So what? Is that supposed to mean something useful ?
[deleted][✘]
Kind of makes me wonder why people who argue that ever look at a restaurant menu.
You missed the point. The point is that out of all the possible combinations of factors, the combination that enabled our universe is what emerged. And you think this is remarkable only because you think our universe was intended.
If you followed my analogy for your life, do you think that God engineered all the factors of your parent's lives down to your specific sperm and egg in order to ensure you emerged? See, it is not at all remarkable that your parents conceived. Happens all the time. But if one believed that the intent was to conceive for a specific sperm and egg, then that IS remarkable. If the sperm next to yours had nudged its way past you, then you would not exist and one of your phantom siblings would be real (and you would be the phantom). Great numbers of possible outcomes is not surprising, but having one particular desired outcome occur is.
Another example. People win lotteries every day. There is nothing surprising about that. But for you to win a lottery tomorrow (the big prize) is extraordinarily unlikely.
You presume the universe was intentional. If there was an intent for this specific universe to exist then yes the odds against it are overwhelming and one would naturally presume an agent was tweaking the dials to accomplish the intent.
But if one does not presume intent, then it is not all that surprising that the factors will have some value. Indeed, if you let your imagination wonder a bit, over eternity many different factors could have emerged and failed (universes that collapse as soon as they start, etc.). Eventually the factors hit a combination that produced a sustainable universe. And that universe evolved creatures who look at how unlikely it is for their universe to exist and claim that is a sign of an intelligent agent who intentionally created the universe for them.
I think many people operate that way nowadays. I am surrounded by Christians (have been my entire life). Family and friends (my best friend being a practicing Catholic). What I observe from my vantage point are people who are influenced by the religion they grew up with (mostly Catholic) but not taking the actual religious teachings too seriously. They basically believe:
It does not get much deeper than that for most of them. Some are even more abstract and are arguably agnostic theists that are very close to being agnostic atheists. My wife is an agnostic theist. She believes it likely that there is a god of some sort but recognizes that she really does not know.
It was a symbiotic relationship. Dogs aided us and we selected dogs for various purposes.
I'm still a cat person though.
Not everything is useful to everyone JR. The fact that you have no interest in whether or not we have free will does not accomplish anything.
The point is that free will is a function of an unknowable (vs. knowable) future. It boils down to if reality is deterministic. If reality is nothing but one large causal chain ... dominoes that will fall ... the future is knowable (even if nobody has the means to know it).
We do not know if this is true. But if reality is deterministic, there can be no free will. Free will would be an illusion. An extremely compelling one, but an illusion nonetheless.
Just so everyone else knows, I am not TiG's wife
Although I think the term agnostic theist fits me as well.
And why is any of that anything other than pointless speculation? I would be more friendly to the idea of "no free will" if there was some practical benefit to humanity by thinking that way. But there isnt, in my opinion.
Ahhh shit! I didn't realize that determinism was such an exclusive club.
I do not believe I did.
Beginning with the assumption that other combinations were possible, yes, that is the point.
Incorrect. I think it remarkable for the large number of parameters that have to be precisely what they are or we wouldn't be here, according to physics. Out of the presumably uncountable permutations that could have occurred, this one just randomly happened to be the one. That is, after all, what the fine tuning argument is and the incredible odds of it is why I find it remarkable.
Whether God engineers every factor I do not know, but you've given me no reason to believe that, in whatever manner, God did not specifically intend each one of us to be born.
I'm convinced that it is.
Resorting to "if" again, and I understand why you do, but you present an unfalsifiable presupposition, just as you think I do. Why would I choose yours over mine?
God can neither be proven or disproven, which is why
… it should never be a part of government or the public school system. If religionists would get that through their head we could be done with this never ending debate. Atheist do not care if you believe, we care that religion is always weaseling itself into public spaces where it has nor business being.
Exactly, we never add to government or the public school system without rigorous proof.
I think most people are technically agnostic (either agnostic theist or agnostic atheist). Most people IMO do not KNOW that a particular god exist (that would be the gnostic theist) or KNOW that no gods exist (that would be a gnostic atheist). Most people realize that we cannot possibly know if a god (or gods) exists or not.
Anyone who claims to KNOW that a god exists or that no gods exist has a major league burden of proof.
Yeah, sorry Freewill but you would evaporate if you set foot in the deterministic club.
Either that or you would destroy the deterministic club.
One of the two.
But for sure, free will and determinism cannot both be true.
I am not resorting to "if", the whole point is based on getting you to look past a myopic view of an intended result. I can see why you refuse to go there.
Do you think it is remarkable that a large number of temporal, sociological and biochemical parameters had to be precisely what they are for you to exist?
That was not the point I was making. But apparently the point is lost on you anyway since you think God might actually be directing all circumstances that lead to the pairing of one specific sperm cell to one specific egg cell.
Why? Now do not engage in a circular argument. That is, do not tell me that you believe the universe was intentional because of fine-tuning since your fine-tuning argument depends on the universe being intentional.
I did not present a presupposition. I presented a hypothetical (just as yours is hypothetical). You just reject every possibility that does not require intent.
The fine-tuning argument is appealing for those who have an anthropic view of reality. If one presumes that the only purpose for a universe is to enable life as they know it then one has presumed intent. If there is intent then that suggests an intelligent agent tweaking the dials.
If one considers the possibility that there is no intent, then we just happen to be the lucky winners of the lottery. A slight difference in the dials and silicon-based creatures might be musing about intent instead of us.
I dont know, I see a lot of them who seem to care.
The whole sentence is needed here:
You do not see much talk about Islam since it has little effect here in the USA. Even less with Hinduism. Non-existent for most others. People generally do not care all that much on what others believe unless they act on those beliefs.
What "there" is there to go to that I am apparently missing, in your view? I believe I've covered all the bases that exist. For instance, it could be possible that there are uncountable previous iterations of various universes, prior to or alongside this one. It could be that, after uncountable eons of whatever passes for time between these events, ours finally showed up.
So, what am I missing? Where is it that I am not going?
Not really the way I think of it. That is, I don't think of the likelihood of my personal existence in the same way I do of the universe existing. To my mind, they are apples and oranges. We believe the universe had a beginning, although that may change. What we don't know is what was before it. Anything? There's no way to know. We can only estimate the odds against this specific one forming by accident.
But my specific existence? What are the variables of determining the likelihood of that? Would we not have to know whether the universe is deterministic or not? If there is no God and the universe is deterministic, the odds are 100% that I would exist. If there is no God and the universe is not deterministic, there's no way to calculate the odds. It would be worse than the three body problem. If God exists (in the deist sense) and the world is deterministic then the odds are 100%. If God exists (in the deist sense) and the universe is not deterministic, no way to calculate the odds. If God exists (in the Christian understanding) then the odds of my existing is 100%.
God directing all and every circumstances is more of a Calvinist view. As far as I understand it, it's the religious version of determinism. I am not a Calvinist. I do believe that God is in control of human events but I do not pretend to know to what extent or how He works. For instance, I believe we have souls, as you are aware. What I wonder is, is it the case that through a long chain of events and pairings I, the essential me, was eventually produced or was it more like God installed me, my soul/spirt, into the right pairing and circumstances when it would serve His purposes best?
That is pure speculation on my part and nothing more. But in any case, your point was not lost on me. I understood that you were trying to point out that, for me to hold the belief you think I do, God had to arrange every circumstance, every pairing, every social environmental factor and every biological and non-biological factor to create each of us to be what we are and how unlikely that is. Did I miss anything?
You don't seem to be listening to what I say. It isn't I who makes this argument so why are you warning me against an argument I haven't made. Have I not said, repeatedly, that the apparent fine tuning is not proof of God nor is it sufficient enough evidence on its own?
As I have repeatedly indicated, there are other explanations other than God for the apparent fine tuning of the universe. As I have also repeatedly stated, taken together with all the other arguments for God, for which I posted the Wiki reference, there is a strong argument for God as the explanation. Enough to convince me and over a billion others.
I intentionally used "presupposition" in response to your use of it:
If you wish me to avoid making it seem as if you presume the conditions for your argument, then you should afford me the same courtesy. Like you don't in the following statement.
Apparently, it seems that you can't comprehend how someone can not avoid presuming agency for the existence of the universe if they see it as evidence that argues for God. Taken by itself, I probably wouldn't consider fine tuning even as evidence but I would still find it damn suspicious. It is only in consideration of all the other arguments for God that, for me, it becomes evidence.
I don't know if there's anything left to discuss, but if there is, you could shorten all of this by reading, understanding and believing that I mean what I say.
And if that were the case, one could expect that every possible universe would manifest (given eternity). That does not evidence a creator (it does not preclude one either). By the same token, a multiverse concept (where there are endless simultaneous universes) would not evidence (or preclude) a creator. The fine-tuning argument only has value if one presupposes intent. That is in effect presupposing God to argue that God exists. It is circular.
I pretty much expect you to reject every analogy I offer. The point was that conception itself is not remarkable but the conception of a specific intended individual would be quite remarkable. It emphasizes that without intent, the fine-tuning argument has little effect.
I was illustrating that conception itself is not remarkable unless there was intent (which implies agency). If there was an intent for you to exist then, yes, it is quite an impressive fine-tuning of temporal, sociological, and biochemical factors to align your sperm cell with your egg cell. Without intent, conception of an individual is commonplace. This emphasizes that intent is critical for the fine-tuning argument ... but that presupposing intent essentially begs the question on the existence of the agent (god).
"can not avoid" is that what you meant to write? It is almost as if you are admitting begging the question. I assume this is not what you meant.
Distilling down what you quoted: One must presume intent for the fine-tuning argument to have any real value. But (as I have intentionally repeated at each turn now) presuming intent creates the fallacy of begging the question on the existence of God.
As you noted several times now, the fine-tuning argument is one of a collection of arguments you find persuasive (in aggregate). I do not know what other arguments are in your collection, but to me the fine-tuning argument for the existence of a sentient creator only seems impressive on the surface but loses its value when one identifies the requirement of intent which presupposes that which the argument is intended to evidence.
Believe this if you wish, TiG. I'm not going to waste any more time on it.
I know.
And my point was that I don't see this analogy as being connected to the fine tuning argument. Specifically because we know where people come from whereas we don't know where the universe comes from. If the analogy was that a person just popped into existence, fully formed and unexplained, it would be different.
Correct. I meant "can avoid".
I twice provided a link to the other arguments. Perhaps it would help you to understand my position if you familiarized yourself with them.
To me, what is impressive about fine tuning is that it is always described with the qualifier "apparent", a phrase I've seen non-religious scientists in the field of cosmology use. Fred Hoyle, for one, who started off an atheist and, while not exactly religious, came to believe in the concept of intelligent design, even though he couldn't say what that intelligence was. Do you believe he presupposed God?
NT has a forum for existential conversation on religion and faith. Thats not where 99% of discussion on religion occurs here. It’s always in news articles, where the religious are attempting to assert their religious based values on everyone else through government and education. Politicians embrace religion ubiquitously in their campaigns.
When I first came here after Newsvine closed, a lot of these types of discussions happened in "Religious but not news". Everyone who participates here also participated there. In other words, where this discussion occurs doesn't really matter. It will still happen.
And if you want to participate in those conversations in a space for existential debate you can or you can choose not to. When some hideous asshole is running for POTUS and pandering / gaslighting for votes while holding an upside down Bible, you’ll find yourself getting dragged into it and feeling offended by those who don’t think religion belongs in government and politics - which it doesn’t.
And when it occurs in other places, the same applies.
that happens all the time here. How many times a day does some one ask some one else for a link to "back up that claim"
And when it occurs in other places, the same applies.
If that’s what you think, then you are missing the point entirely. Existential debate belongs in existential forums, just like religion and faith belongs in churches - not government and schools. Atheists are not starting this, we are reacting to something religionists are starting by forcing their religion on people who want nothing to do with it. You know this.
Maybe, but maybe it's you. I'm simply pointing out that this just happens and there's no point in being bothered by it.
Your link is to a Wikipedia page that discusses the most common philosophical arguments used to argue for a creator. The page includes arguments such as the Cosmological category of arguments which do not even argue for a sentient creator but rather merely a first cause (an uncaused cause). Some arguments in this category sneak in notions such as sentience in order to make the conclusions appear as though they are arguments for the existence of God. As I noted years ago, this is sophistry.
I figured you had a refined set of arguments that you have studied and included in your own personal list (along with fine-tuning) as being (as you would suggest) the collective evidence for God. That is why I made my comment ... I did not think you merely accepted all the arguments.
But in all of this, what should strike you as a critical omission is the argument for the Christian god. At the very best these philosophical arguments suggest that it is reasonable to assume that there is something greater than us that is responsible for our existence. None of them give the slightest philosophical evidence (being generous with the term 'evidence' here) that the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, unity (albeit a Trinity), perfect, eternal, etc. entity known as the biblical God with the documented behavior, wishes, flaws, etc. actually exists.
So as I have noted, it is one thing to believe that there could be a sentient creator of which we know absolutely nothing. One would argue that the sentient part is reasonable because of our intuitive notion that complexity, beauty, functionality, etc. is a result of directed intent. And certainly the creator part is indisputable since it is proven by our existence (the creator attribute is distinct of the sentient attribute). One could even argue an attribute of eternal, but that is about the end of the attributes supported by evidence and logic.
But when one seeks to evidence the Christian God (or, really, any contemporary god(s)) one runs into a problem of attribution. We (human beings) just cannot resist creating detailed narratives about our gods. And the more details we add (and the greater the proposed powers of the god per the narrative) the more difficult it is to justify the attributes. The less believable the described god becomes.
And when the narrative defines a particular god as a contradiction, that god (per the narrative) provably does not exist.
More accurately, you consider them sophistry.
There are a lot of arguments, is the point. I made no statement as to how many of them are on what you call my list. The point isn't what I personally accept but that there are more arguments than simply the fine tuning argument and, whichever of them are on my list, or even other peoples, gives strong evidence for God.
I do not see why you think I should be concerned with such an omission, since proving the God of the Bible is quite obviously not the intent of the arguments. I certainly never said they did.
As you've said a number of times over the years. A position I find odd. It suggests that said sentient creator has no agency in making itself known. Why do you believe that? Because you believe that it would operate according to your logic and reasoning and, since it hasn't to your knowledge, it must not have?
Nothing to respond to here other than to point out that this is simply the long way to say you believe any specific description of God, or sentient creator if you prefer, is simply made up. You're welcome to your opinion.
Apparently, though, you don't feel you can continue the previous conversation and so are trying to shift the subject to something you feel more confident in which to stand. That's fine. Maybe someone will be interested in having a conversation with you concerning it.
That was the point you made, Drakk. You noted that the fine-tuning argument coupled with 'others' is what you consider collective evidence. And yes there are all sorts of arguments. But what matters when discussing this with you is which ones you find to be valuable.
Here is your first exchange with Gordy where you provided the link:
What is the purpose of these existential arguments to you other than providing 'evidence' of the existence of God? How are we to interpret comments like this from you other than you holding fine-tuning and other arguments for God as being arguments for the existence of God?
We all know that 'God' to you means the god of the Bible.
Because you used the term 'God'. By 'God' you mean that god you believe in ... the god of the Bible. I assume that is still the case. My comments are based on that assumption.
You put forth a notion that I have never stated and tell me that I believe it. I stated that
Paraphrasing: belief in an eternal sentient creator (only these attributes, no others) could be supported to some degree by logic and evidence:
If we go beyond these attributes (and actually only creator is fully evidenced) we are on shaky ground. We do not know that any additional ascribed attributes are true. People merely believe they are true.
Yes, a god certainly could provide us evidence to justify attributes. Indeed, that gets to the core of Gordy's argument. Where is the clear, convincing evidence of sentience ... of an eternal sentient entity ... and worse ... of omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence omnibenevolence, unity (albeit a Trinity), perfection, etc.?
Your argument has always netted down to: I just know. That simply does not qualify as evidence since it cannot be independently verified. It only works for you.
You are the one who has been saying there is not much left to talk about. So I picked an aspect that I thought had more discussion. It is slimy to imply that I am moving goalposts, etc. I have been giving you direct responses all along. I am not 'resorting' or 'shifting' or any other behavior that suggests a weakness in my argument. If you think you see weakness then bring it on.
Neither of us want to just keep repeating ourselves and have each comment grow longer than the prior one. You indicated we were done, I offered commentary on one area, and now you imply that doing so indicates a weakness in my argument.
That would be incorrect. As you quoted, Gordy's statement and my response was:
What is important isn't about me personally, but the false statement that there is nothing to suggest God, for which I provided evidence. I don't know why you are trying to make this about me personally.
No other purpose that I am aware of.
True, but I proceeded with the assumption that it was understood that these arguments do not specify a specific deity. I can switch to simply referring to "sentient creator" if it helps you. But, as you yourself said in the highlighted portion of the quote above, I assumed we all understand that we are simply speaking about whether God, god, sentient creator or whatever appellation you prefer, exists.
Um, okay. Apparently I need to just assume I need to switch to "sentient creator".
I disagree and I think what you write after this until the last two paragraphs supports me. It certainly seems to suggest to me that for a sentient creator to qualify as having communicated something beyond what we can deduce from nature and the resulting logic (which is rather more than I think you realize) such an entity would have to do so unambiguously, eliminating any other possible explanation. That isn't reasoned logic. That's simply a personal demand.
Um, sure. If you call characterizing my argument as something that it clearly wasn't as simply a change of subject there's not much I can do about it, or maybe desire to, at least. It would have been better to ask a clarifying question as to whether I thought the different arguments for God, or sentient creator, proved the Christian God rather than take the track you did. Honestly, I don't know how you could be confused, especially since I sometimes intentionally used sentient creator, or something similar, during the conversation to indicate I wasn't arguing for the Christian God specifically.
Well, I thought I made a rather germane point concerning Fred Hoyle and was expecting a response concerning that, since we were arguing about whether the presupposition about a sentient creator was necessary to see the universe as fine tuned. Instead, rather than reply to that, you suddenly bring in an entirely new claim that I was saying the various arguments for God, or sentient creator, prove the Christian God. Pretty sure you would have reacted the same had I done that.
Meanwhile In reality Trump is an actual sign of the apocalypse!
As Christ prophesied, many of His are following The Antichrist...
Um, yeahhhhhh...
You didn't provide any evidence for God. At least nothing which would pass scientific scrutiny and standards of evidence. Such "evidence" for god is actually just a belief or a theological twist of "evidence" to suit the conclusion of a God.
I both agree and disagree with you. Yes there is a "forum" here for religion, but it is not used, the same way that almost none of the sub-forums are used.
Clearly, to me, there is a news element associated with MAGA that believe we should have a God-oriented government.
Unfortunately almost no one here wanted to discuss what was actually seeded.
Maybe if there was proof they would be believers
The topic seeded is actually more interesting than this endless debate on whether God is real or not.
I would like to say I think this lady either didn't take any civics classes or she failed miserably
This is NOT about you personally, but since I am speaking with you and you have claimed evidence for the existence of God, your positions are obviously going to be discussed.
And if you want to truly water this down to "evidence that suggests an abstract sentient creator" then the bar is so low one can provide evidence for pretty much anything. I have noted that our existence is evidence that something enabled our existence. So we can call that a creator. I then went on to suggest that beauty, complexity, etc. is taken by some as 'evidence' of a sentient creator. It is not actual evidence, but in an intelligent design sense, it appeals to our intuition. And if we have worked our way to sentient creator, we can apply logic to suggest that this creator is either eternal or it was created by something that was eternal.
But that is as far as we can go with evidence (even when we stretch it).
The philosophical arguments suggest a sentient creator (at best). They do NOT even suggest the biblical God. They at best suggest an abstract deity.
But you used the word 'God' repeatedly. You did not use the phrase 'a god' or the word deity or anything else that suggests you are speaking at a very abstract level. We all know what you mean by 'God' so naturally we will all assume that your use of 'God' is still to connote the god of the Bible. If by 'God' you are referring to an abstract eternal sentient creator then you already have my detailed position on that. We would not have many disagreements at that level of abstraction.
How could you expect anyone reading this to know that in this thread you have chosen to use 'God' to mean sentient creator (and nothing more)?
To be evidence (which is what we are talking about), the 'evidence' needs to be verifiable by a third party. If not, it is at best evidence for a single individual. That is not what is meant by the term 'evidence'.
Already explained. But again, when Drakk refers to 'God' your comment history has established that this means the god of the Bible. Using 'God' to mean only 'sentient creator' would of course muddy the waters.
Back @3.1.385 you wrote this:
If Hoyle came to believe in intelligent design strictly because of the fine-tuning argument then he definitely presupposed a sentient creator in the fine-tuning argument.
I had already explained this in detail across several posts, so here is one answer I had already given. (As I noted, after a while it gets old just repeating what one writes.):
I had established the foundation for this early on noting that eternity enables universes to emerge and degrade and since time is not an issue, every possible combination logically would manifest. (And we can also toss in the multiverse concept which also has the effect of many simultaneous universes emerging under various conditions.) So, if universe emerging throughout eternity is the case, it is no surprise that the 'fine-tuned' universe which enables us to ponder our existence has come into existence. And, similarly, it would be no surprise for the 'fine-tuned' universe which enables silicon-based life forms to exist would also manifest.
I also tried to illustrate how the assumption of intent changes everything. Remember my sperm+egg analogy? Your existence (mine too) is a truly staggering notion in terms of probability given all the conditions that must be true for you to exist (rather than the likely trillions of phantom siblings that never made it). So if one presumes that you specifically were intended then, yeah, some exotic fine-tuning had to take place. On the other hand, if one does not presume intent, then the fact that someone exists (happens to be you) is not extraordinary in the slightest. And if your mother had even the slightest change in body chemistry in her uterus, one of your currently phantom siblings would have been conceived (and you would be a phantom).
So if one views the fine-tuning argument without presuming intent, we can marvel at how our universe can only exist if many factors all had a rather narrow range of values (e.g. if gravity were slightly less strong, gases would never coalesce and start forcing H atoms together to create He atoms and initiate the process of nuclear fusion which enables stars). But the fact that our universe is dependent on these factors simply means that if those factors were not true, our universe would not exist.
However, if we presume intent ... if we presume that our universe was created to host life as we know it ... then the fact that it is so dependent on these factors suggests that there was an intelligent agent tweaking the dials to ensure our particular universe manifested.
This intelligent agent is essentially a sentient creator.
So, sans the presumption of intent, we observe that a universe (such as ours) requires a number of factors to be aligned in a particular way for it to exist and that a slight change would cause a very different universe.
But with the presumption of intent, the very specific values for these factors suggest a designer. And since fine-tuning is often used as an argument for a sentient creator, presumption of intent + fine-tuning is begging the question. It presupposes an intelligent agent (sentient creator) in order to argue the likelihood of a sentient creator.
I have gone into far more detail than necessary just to illustrate that I have no reservation addressing any of your challenges. But, as I noted, I am just rehashing what I have already expressed in my comments on this thread.
This is why the so-called, "elites" are in-charge of doing what is best for the country. . . (even when they get it wrong). This lady and those at her level of understanding should not be popularizing dissent. . . when she is misinformed about the facts of the matter she is contesting (nor any man for that matter either-I am pretty sure we can find a man or men doing similarly).
It doesn't matter if a person believes in God. Ignorance of God is more relevant. It's clear from the statement upon which this is all based that not only did the writer not believe in God, but he didn't care to consider the details of what is known/believed about God. The ignorance exists whether God is real or not.
So, yes, you could apply it to a fictional character, but it's the ignorance that matters. It would be silly for someone who never watched Star Trek - or worse, thinks Star Trek is dumb - to speculate on what Data would do. Obviously.
But, any real person would suffice, as well. I have no qualification to speculate about what lots of real people would do or say in a given situation because I don't know them. I know nothing, for example, about the president/king/prime minister of most countries, beyond the fact of their sovereign status. It would be ridiculous to speculate about what they might do based solely on the knowledge that they are in charge. Their fictional/non-fictional status is irrelevant.
The believer is educated about God - just like the Star Trek fan or the devoted political supporter of a real leader. Presumably, the believer studies God and ponders what he believes to be the word of God. It's so important, that he tries to conform his life to what he believes is the will of God. And so when he guesses would God would want, it is at least based on something significant and positive.
That's easy enough. Because the subject concerned the existence of God/sentient creator, not what the attributes of same are. To anyone who reads the arguments on the Wiki page, it is readily apparent that most of them do no deal with anything else. I assume that you knew this. Apparently you do, but I don't understand why you're spending so much time pointing out the obvious in a manner that suggests that I had not been aware of this.
Yes, it is what is meant in this conversation. You can reject that but that, too, is an individual position.
Well, perhaps you should take it up with Gordy, then. I was responding to his post, after all. But in the future, if we speak of such things again, I will try to limit references to God as "sentient creator" so it will be less confusing for you, even though I'm certain you know that I would simply be using a different term for God in my own mind.
Interesting but confusing. Can you please explain why an atheist would presuppose a sentient creator as an explanation for the fine-tuning argument? I can understand someone with an anthropic view going in presupposing but why would an atheist have such a view? The several articles I read about Hoyle and the fine-tuning argument certainly do not support presupposition on Hoyle's part. That is, he certainly did not have any thoughts concerning a sentient creator going in. He only considered a sentient creator after the fact. So, in what sense are you using "presuppose"?
I'm sorry, but I don't find this to be relevant to the discussion. All you do here is present a counterargument to the fine-tuning argument suggesting a sentient creator. The fine-tuning is not the subject. The subject is whether or not there is evidence for a sentient creator. It certainly worked for Hoyle as evidence, who I do not believe presupposed the idea and was unlikely to have had an anthropic view of the universe prior.
I see. But I'm not sure of the point. Are you saying that it's okay to do all that marveling but we can't actually ask the question "Why"?
So, then the solution is to presume no intent?
That doesn't make sense. Why presume intent and then say these very specific values suggest a designer? The presumption is unnecessary, as the designer is suggested by the data itself, not the person.
Personally, I don't think you've justified that one can only attribute a sentient creator or intelligent design by presupposing it, as I think I've clearly pointed out in the point immediately before this one. It's pretty obvious presupposition isn't necessary. Further, how does my own view on fine-tuning support your presupposition theory? I don't consider fine-tuning, by itself, as evidence for a sentient creator, as other possibilities put forth as explanations cannot be disproven. I would never say fine-tuning proves a sentient creator, in other words.
Yes, you have. I'm sorry but most of it is unnecessary. In all that you've written, you only insist presupposition, not explained how it must be the case. Hoyle is a pretty conclusive example where the data suggested it, not presupposition. Unless you're saying that any explanation given for the apparent fine-tuning of the universe is presupposition, including materialism. If so, where does that get us?
Still no evidence of a "sentient creator." Just a lot of belief.
Well said.
Why is this clear? How can you possibly know what Hal understands regarding any god based on his single comment?
But you presume that Hal is not. Why?
There are many "non-believers" who are steeped in knowledge of various religions and who fully understand how adherents to those religions believe their God, or gods, might act. There is nothing inherently "ignorant" about lack of belief in a supernatural being as your comment seems to imply.
The original comment in this thread was, quite obviously, written with a sarcastic intent, but is not all that different from statements made by believers who claim such things as "God send that hurricane as punishment".
The first reply to the original comment clearly expresses a level of phony poutrage and we have seen that same nonsensical opinion expressed before. It completely misconstrues the actual intent of the original comment, which was, of course, the purpose of the reply.
As for the final paragraph in your comment, sadly, human history proves that "when [a believer] guesses would [sic] God would want, it is at least based on something significant and positive" is not always the case. I'm certain that you can think of numerous instances where, for example, wars have been fought because of religious beliefs which have resulted in the deaths of countless millions of innocents. It may be "significant", in a sense, but not "positive" as we would understand that word to mean in the context of your comment.
And, as I noted, you are well known to have a specific definition for the word 'God' so people who know you (such as me) will naturally interpret God written by you as the god of the Bible. If you had used almost any other word (e.g. god, deity) or phrase (e.g. sentient creator, intelligent designer) this would have been clear.
I have not defined the rules for evidence. I am just reporting. And you know this anyway. It makes no sense whatsoever to claim one has evidence for something if the 'evidence' cannot be verified by someone else.
If someone approached this from a gnostic atheist perspective then they would NOT presuppose a sentient creator. Outside of that, I can only speculate as to what Hoyle actually did. He may have considered this from many angles as part of an objective analysis and concluded (for whatever reason) that the fine-tuning argument suggests a sentient creator. Thing is, Drakk, it does not matter what Hoyle was thinking, what matters is logic. That is something we can discuss without having to speculate on the detailed thought process of professor Hoyle.
The logic is as I stated. If there is no presumed intent, then the specific characteristics of our universe (those factors of the fine-tuning argument) are simply details of our universe. We can consider ourselves lucky that our universe has these characteristics because, if not, we would not exist (but maybe some silicon-based life would exist). Sans presumed intent our universe is no more remarkable than you being conceived when trillions of your phantom siblings missed the cut. You were the lucky one.
However, if we presume that there was an intent for our specific universe to come into existence then the unique combination of factors required for our universe to exist demand an intelligent agent orchestrating these factors.
To wit:
If presumed intent, then argument for a sentient creator.
If no presumed intent, our universe happened to be the one that manifested and we are special only because it was our universe that manifested and not some other universe.
So you do not want me to rebut the fine-tuning argument. But you want to use the fine-tuning argument to suggest a sentient creator.
No. Not in any way shape or form do I suggest that.
No, what is important is to recognize that without presuming intent, the fine-tuning argument does not suggest a sentient creator.
This suggests that I have wasted my time explaining this many times now.
Yes, Drakk, I know. I have not suggested that you think fine-tuning proves a sentient creator.
(sigh) I am not insisting on presupposition of intent. I am saying that if one presupposes intent then the fine-tuning argument is begging the question. If one presupposes intent then they have presupposed something that can have intent. That is presupposing a sentient creator in order to argue the likelihood of a sentient creator.
And if one does not presuppose intent then all we have is the fact that our universe exists because of a very rare combination of factors and that a minor variation in any of the factors would have meant our universe would have not manifested.
Well 413 comments in just this thread alone, so if that was the tactic it didn't work very well eh?
I thought that as well John. The idea that our actions are nothing more than a complicated series of cause and effect without us having any agency whatsoever certainly seems to fly in the face of accepting accountability for our actions. How can we justify rule of law based on personal accountability in a completely deterministic universe?
TiG and I discussed this in great detail a few years ago either here or on Newsvine, and he had a pretty good counter argument for my concern, but I'll be damned if old age (cause) and my shit for memory (effect) has caused me to forget what his counterpoint was. It's not my fault...
Perhaps we should open this discussion on another article.
_Two things. First, the subject is whether there is evidence for God. I was responding to Gordy's statement, remember?
So why would I not talk about God since He is an integral part of the discussion? You know, is there evidence for God?
Second, no matter what term I use, do you think for one second that I don't have God in mind when I use it unless I specifically indicate otherwise? Do you think anyone is going to be fooled by my using a different term?
Except your rules for evidence only apply to the physical universe, not anything else. Therefore, that standard cannot be used on this subject. And you know this anyway. Trying to insist on it is not only a tacit statement that there is only the material universe and nothing else, it's dishonest.
Except it can. Just not in the way you want it to be.
You mean that is your view of the logic. Mine says that if a thing looks designed, it very well might be. There's no need for presupposition or anthropic views. If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it very well might be a duck.
It really seems to me that you just hate the idea that the universe and things in it might have been designed and so are just coming up with some way to ignore the idea.
Rebut? Is that what you think you're doing? To me it looks like you're just trying to sell the idea that in order to take intelligent design seriously one first has to presuppose it. I don't agree with that. How long do you want to argue about it?
I think that would be a pretty hard sell to a lot of atheist scientists who think intelligent design might be true.
Well, wasted someone's time, anyway. You don't seem to realize that all you have done so far is insist that to even talk about intelligent design you first have to presuppose it is intelligent design. You have not once given an argument as to why the data itself cannot suggest it. Instead, you just say we need to just sit back and appreciate how complex everything is and smile or something. And that somehow is supposed to make sense.
Great. I can agree with that. Now, what does that have to do with this conversation? Who's presupposing?
I see. So, presupposition for your view is okay then, but not for intelligent design (even though I don't think presupposition is a necessary part)?
I just explained that when you use the word 'God' that the assumption is that you are referring to the god of the Bible. That was in response to you stating that the context should have made it clear that by God you were referring to an abstract sentient entity. Now you are (unnecessarily, by the way) defending your right to speak of God in response to a comment by Gordy which establishes God contextually as a character in a book (the book being the Bible).
Drakk, pick a position. Either you want us to consider your use of God to mean the god of the Bible (which is what your comment history suggests) or you want us to have it mean something else. I have no problem with you using the term 'God' as you see fit, but pick a definition and stick with it.
And you again make my point. Historically you use 'God' to refer to the god of the Bible. So, naturally, that is what one would expect. And you just keep affirming the expectation that when Drakk uses 'God' he is referring to the god of the Bible.
( This is bizarre )
I did not invent the rules. But, Drakk, you must realize how utterly absurd it is for you to argue that we should allow evidence that is supernatural and thus unverifiable. The psychics and ghost-talkers of the planet would absolutely love that!
This is so ridiculous.
If something looks designed it indeed might be designed. I have not suggested otherwise. And if you do not know that and if you do not know what I have been suggesting (repeatedly, in detail, with examples, more examples, more details) then you are not listening and there is no point in my yet again laying this all out for you.
I think you are now projecting. You clearly hate the idea that there might not be a sentient creator and you are thus interpreting my skepticism as a desire on my part for there to be no sentient creator. I routinely note that a sentient creator is a possibility. I have also identified reasons why I do not find that as very likely. Without going into detail on that (since I am sure I will be wasting my time) suffice it to say that what I find to be the most reasonable explanation for the existence of our universe is a non-sentient, quintessential substance (the lowest form of 'energy') that interacts to produce the various forms we call reality. These forms include the lowest level particles that we currently comprehend up to the most magnificent combinations which we call galaxies. Observing reality we see tiny little things interacting and ultimately producing the cosmos. It is not so much of a stretch to imagine even tinier things over eternity which result in the reality we call particle physics.
It makes great sense to me that if something is eternal (and something must be eternal) that this eternal thing is of low complexity. Having the eternal foundation of everything being the most complex, powerful entity ever pretty much violates all that we know about reality. That does not mean it is impossible, but it does mean that to hold it possible we need an awfully good argument.
That is not what I argued (and you know it). I argued that one must presuppose intent for the fine-tuning argument to sensible conclude a sentient creator.
You are clearly not trying to be serious.
Yes. I can hold the God I believe in as the God that best fits the arguments referenced in the Wiki pages while at the same time know that, for the purposes of this discussion, treat the concept of God's existence in a non-attribute assigned generalization. For that reason, I said I would switch to sentient creator if it helped you. But to my mind, God certainly fits the description of sentient creator.
I also said that the fine-tuning argument does not, by itself, prove God. That remains true even if it were shown conclusively that the universe is actually fined tuned in the sense of intelligent design. And since you say that since I use the word "God" and the assumption is that I am referring to the God of the Bible, you are actually acknowledging that I am not specifically speaking of God on the subject of either fine-tuning or intelligent design, so what's the problem?
I would say that I'll just stick with sentient creator just to avoid all this nonsense but I think I'm about done with this. Having read the rest of what's in your post, it just doesn't seem worth the bother. I think you're just looking for a fight, not an argument.
Would you agree that by their inclusion of Genesis, Exodus and Deuteronomy in the Torrah, Bible and Koran that the One GOD of Abraham is thereby The One GOD of Us All whose inspired common scriptures they all have used to justify killing oneanother?
HE IS if one is a truthful fundamentalist.
One who believe in literal interpretation.
Which is, I believe, what you profess to.
I am not a fundamentalist if it means taking everything the Bible says completely literally.
I do not believe that Jesus was being literal here. It is hyperbole. As hyperbole, the meaning is “that whatever hinders us from yielding that obedience to God which he requires in his law, ought to be cut off.”
My hand does not cause me to sin. My heart does. Cutting off a hand does nothing to change that.
You did not answer my question!
That's correct. I addressed the only thing that interested me.
I don't, everything 'He' seems to have handed out came drenched in unintended consequences.
Trump Supporter Goes Silent When Confronted By CNN About 'God' In The Constitution
THAT was the topic. Looking through all 122 comments I counted TWO that were specifically on topic.
As frequently happens on here, people go off on tangents.
With regard to the Trump supporter in the video, she is either naive and misguided, or delusional, or possibly, all of them. We have seen plenty of videos over the months and years where Trumpists say things that are absurd and untrue. I saw a video recently where a Trump supporter declared the Earth is flat. This lady's misimpression is not much different than Trump supporter Marjorie Taylor Green blaming Jewish Space Lasers as the cause of wildfires.
The sad reality is that THESE PEOPLE VOTE!
A one hand job.
Thing is, there is not much to discuss about this lady and those like her. Tens of millions hold fundamental beliefs that are not true. The most profound untrue belief held by Trump supporters is that Trump is their champion ... that he is out to work for them.
These beliefs are based on falsehoods, but once falsehoods are accepted to a point where they gain critical mass, there is no changing the minds of those whose beliefs are predicated on those false facts.
Now, outside of poorly informed people like this lady, we have those who believe that Trump was somehow responsible for the rise in the economy during his first three years but of course he was not responsible for the last year. This is another false notion but it is common and those who just do not comprehend global economics will continue with this simplistic and flawed concept of global economics.
The minds of those who would vote for Trump are set in stone. The only way to stop Trump is to get people out there voting for Biden. Good or not, Biden is yet again the only entity that stands in the way of Trump acquiring the powers of the presidency. Voting for RFK Jr. or anyone else is not going to accomplish anything good. The Ds better rally their base and win over the reachable independents. The GOP is a lost cause.
as I said in way more interesting
I will enter this additional discussion about God, and Gods, (and not about the lady who does the Constitution a disservice by quoting from the Declaration of Independence. . . in her ignorance) to bring up something to consider: There have been and still remain 'G/gods" and "God," and many religions and sanctified (set apart) peoples have fought, injured, and killed fighting against. . .themselves. . .other religious people whom from their respective perspectives were labeled: "heathens"—with deities of their own. And, less we forget the history of the Catholic Church and the Jewish Faith which hunted down, imprisoned, tortured, maimed, and yes, killed those who they considered apostates.
As to this woman's. . .confidence in what she thinks she knows. . . about her rights. . . I could not help myself (as I gazed on her in the video) where those rights were when girls and women were under the full authority and control of their husbands. . .as far as the early laws of this country determined was 'right' for females.
Not true. The "evidences" for God are good enough for a church setting and people who are led to believe. . . I will admit such evidences can not hold up as proofs of God even in a court where believers are put in-charge. There is an authentic reason why such matters are called "religious faith/s" - because. . . humanity can not point to one actual case of a supernatural miracle occurring one time in their lifetime, in my opinion. And yes, we have grifters in the faith who are 'promising' a great many spiritual things. . . but are they really? Nope. Such matters hinge on the willingness of believers to be 'led' by another.
Almost 500 comments.
Thanks to everyone for participating , but its time to move on.