Ergonomically speaking, it would be a waste of energy to be skeptical living in a community that values truth and so, over time living in one would eventually turn off the skeptic inside us. — TheMadFool

Hmm - I thought the key focus of skepticism was valuing truth above most things. I think sometimes people mistake skepticism for denialism and cynicism.

You've lost me. — 180 Proof

I hope not! It's plain and simple: skepticism is useless, ergo a wasteful way to spend energy, around truthful people. There are no lies among good people. To watch out for them would be like expecting a dog to speak fluent English. Never gonna happen! Ergo, wasted energy. Ergo, skeptic turned off - background app open but not in use. Close app to save battery!

Hmm - I thought the key focus of skepticism was valuing truth above most things. I think sometimes people mistake skepticism for denialism and cynicism. — Tom Storm

Skepticism (doubtful until evidence is furnished) is pointless in a community that values truth. It would be a baloney detection kit in an environment without baloney, as useless as a lie detector is on honest Abe (Lincoln).

I asked the question because I believe there is a more resentment perspective on faith than logical. Basing on personal bad experience because of people than spiritual understanding. Boarder line of stereotype, in the same perspective as racial profiling. The only difference is we are not talking about skin color or race but discriminating against others based on there perspective on life.

Excusing negative thinking and cynical behavior as being an intellectual or having a skeptical mind.

Asking for proof which is find a healthy dose of skepticism can be good. But don’t take it over board where you are sounding like a robot. You still have your own mind, hopes, dreams and fantasies.

Don’t overly dissect life where you take the romance out of living.

You can enjoy a sunset without having to understand the anatomy of a star.

You can enjoy a rose garden without having to recall how photosynthesis works.

You can enjoy a piece of cake without having to know the anatomy of wheat.

In all honesty we are all going to face death. Your going to die, I’m going to die we are all going to die at some point in our lives. That is inevitable whether you believe there is something afterwards or not.

It really comes down to this are you satisfied with your life. Why ask the question “why we believe?” If you are content with your life the question should be irrelevant.

I believe in God because is due to my own personal unique experience that led me to that conclusion. This way of thinking gives me joy.

If not believing gives you joy than good for you why are you questioning how others pursue happiness?

Skepticism (doubtful until evidence is furnished) is pointless in a community that values truth. — TheMadFool

I wonder about that. The assumption there is that it only functions around deception. My skepticism starts with me and I value truth (in as much as truth is possible). I often find myself pondering 'Why do I think that?" What evidence do I have for that view?' 'Do I really have an opinion on this subject?' "What am I not considering here?' Etc. I just consider it a necessary part of interacting with the world.

Wow, many interesting posts here. Thank you.

I was wondering if logical arguments on Existence of God could prove anything before, because God is out of the boundary of our reasoning. But maybe it can, depending what definition of God one takes.
And perhaps it could be a fruitful attempt in strengthening one's belief in God more. Because humans are rational beings, they need rational argument and proof of their beliefs even if they are beliefs on abstract objects.

There are, of course, many issues that could be further clarified in this issue such as, the logical validity of the definitions of God, and agreement on the nature of God i.e. whether God is just an abstract concept , some sort of supernatural force, or physical being etc.

I will take time reading each post in this thread when I get some peace and quiet time, and when I find points that I am not sure or want to clarify, then I will get back with the questions.

I was wondering if logical arguments on Existence of God could prove anything before, because God is out of the boundary of our reasoning. — Corvus

Probably only the case if you believe God exists.

Probably only the case if you believe God exists. — Tom Storm

I thought that it is an irrational and absurd act to keep trying to prove Existence of God, if you already believe in the Existence of God.

I was also under the impression that logical arguments cannot prove the external objects' existence or represent even the complexity of daily human life contents. They are just methods for checking and verifying if claimed arguments are consistent and valid. It cannot even prove if the conclusion is true. True conclusions are not always valid, if drawn from inconsistent arguments. And false conclusions can be valid in the opposite case.

I wonder about that. The assumption there is that it only functions around deception. My skepticism starts with me and I value truth (in as much as truth is possible). I often find myself pondering 'Why do I think that?" What evidence do I have for that view?' 'Do I really have an opinion on this subject?' "What am I not considering here?' Etc. I just consider it a necessary part of interacting with the world. — Tom Storm

First off, there's something I can't quite wrap my head around. There's Doubting Thomas and he's been labeled a skeptic but, in my humble opinion, he is one in spirit (doubtful) but not in letter (there's so much more to skepticism).

A true skeptic won't be convinced by anything at all for fae knows that justificatory methods (logic and its ilk) have been built on shaky foundations. I'll not go into that and it isn't hard to figure it out given one has a coupla months to spare and loads of patience.

Doubting Thomas is doubtful but then proof (Jesus' wounds) dispels his uncertainty regarding the veracity of Jesus' claims. That's not skepticism - that's just reason mimicking skepticism - something I found out the hard way. A true skeptic, the way I see it, suspends judgment - given a claim, fae neither affirms nor denies. A skeptic is always in two minds about everything, ironclad proof or not a shred of evidence. I suppose given that any proposition can be rendered as p v ~p, a skeptic will not commit to either of them for to do so is to give logic a clean bill of health, the wrong move, not according to some other system of thinking but as per logic itself. Need I say more?

How does all I said mesh with faith?

Faith is, if you really look at it, a cross between dogmatism (I hope I got that right) and skepticism (as I outlined above): You commit to one possibility (dogmatism -> p or ~p) sans proof (skepticism -> no proof is gonna cut it). Faith then is an acknowledgement of the deep flaw in logic - it's kinda like poking fun at Doubting Toms (prove it to me!) and at all the folks who mix proof and religion, by extension all other claims - and also reveals what seems to be a fundamental truth about how we (should) deal with each other - we need to be truthful to ourselves and other people. That's where good people come in. I'm not sure though as I'm a die-hard skeptic. Did I say anything?

Did I say anything? — TheMadFool

I am not sure.

I am not sure the goal of the theological arguments is to, on its own, demonstrate the existence of God, say. — Bylaw

I think you're right.

1. How have you arrived at your belief that God exists? Was it after some theoretical or logical proofs on God 's existence or some personal religious experience? Or via some other routes? — Corvus

What I call God is not what most people call God, but it's the closet thing. I've had an ongoing experience for a year or so; that can't be accounted for otherwise. I've made every attempt to eliminate the possibility and failed to do so; including multiple psychologist. The other side of the experience is the inability to convey it in a meaningful way as if evidence isn't supposed to be possible. The moment I can identify or be notified of an inconsistency in what is a rational experience with no rational explanation I would welcome it.

2. Why do you try to prove God in a theoretical / logical way, when already believing in God's existence? — Corvus

I don't and if God has a will it intends us to be atheists.

I know the difference between an imaginary gold coin and a real gold coin. Do you?

imaginary gold coin — tim wood

The Problems of Traditional Religion

The Christian concept of reward and punishment
Handed out by an omnipotent, omniscient God,
Is derivative of the family experience—
The child and parent—a conception of our world.


God in the News

I picked up some newspapers and magazines:

A suicide bomber blew up a bus and himself as well,
Sending many of the unbelievers straight to Hell,
While assuring himself and 72 friends a place
In Heaven, a double blessing from his Faith.

His family, relatives, and friends gathered soon
To celebrate their wonderful good fortune.

The bomber’s death was especially lauded as wise,
Because he had proceeded directly to Paradise,
Bypassing the possibly troublesome way
Of the litigation of Judgment Day.

Fighting continued in Kashmir
Due to some perceived insults to Muhammad.

A man was released in Northern Ireland
After claiming to be a Protestant atheist.

A child of Christian Scientists died
Due to the religious refusal of antibiotics.

Extremists sought nuclear formulas and parts to reduce
The peril of the unbelievers in the world,
Those whose ways are not sanctioned by Allah.

Pope authorizes millions to reach
Children sexually abused by priests.

The recently discovered Gospel of Judas
Suggests he wasn’t really such a bad-ass.

Some nuclear facilities no longer exist in Syria,
About whose disappearance both Syria and Israel
Seem to know nothing.

Battles rage on over differences in some holy books.

Iran promises to destroy Israel.

President Bush led off his latest speech with
‘In God we trust.”

And in a more than 2000 year-old newspaper:

The Emperor led off his latest speech with
‘In Zeus we trust’.

And finally, in a future newspaper:

Religious extremists detonate atomic bomb
In Washington, DC;
Nuclear retaliation destroys
Twelve highly populated middle-eastern cities.

World greatly stunned, begins to widely read
‘The End of Faith’, ‘The God Delusion’,
And ‘god is Not Great’.

1. How have you arrived at your belief that God exists? Was it after some theoretical or logical proofs on God 's existence or some personal religious experience? Or via some other routes?

2. Why do you try to prove God in a theoretical / logical way, when already believing in God's existence? — Corvus

1. Neither. Though it was through a series of observations.

2, What are you even talking about. Effectively is not always automatically logically. As in saying this and that. At the end of the day it is about action.

Beyond all this however people conflate "any intelligence, power, essence, or existence beyond human life" with God. Which is understandable. The idea of life continuing after death is not "God" per se, though it's all in the same philosophical boat, as it were.

What I call God is not what most people call God, but it's the closet thing. — Cheshire

It seems to me that if you want an existing God; that is, one that others might agree with you as existing, then it had better have some attributes that others can perceive and agree upon. Else you have a personal god - and nothing wrong with that - like an invisible friend.

World greatly stunned, begins to widely read
‘The End of Faith’, ‘The God Delusion’,
And ‘god is Not Great’. — PoeticUniverse

Of all your fantasies, this is the wildest. Have you read these books? Their arguments are no better than yours. They're badly written, intellectually dishonest, and smug.

Valid commentary. I seem to have acquired a novel experience that persists. I wouldn't want others agreeing with me on the off chance it validates a delusion. It's like an invisible friend with implicit priorities and a ridiculous code of ethics. Not sure if I'm making up for something or what, but it's not about me and the sooner it's over the better at this point.

I was brought up by a devoutly Catholic mother, educated in a working class mostly immigrant Catholic grammar school and then an elite Catholic high school, served mass as an altarboy from 2nd through 12th grade, and lastly considered the priesthood as a religious studies honors student. When I was a believer I'd sincerely believed I'd believed.

However, I gave up "God" for Lent during 11th grade after acknowledging that the Bible was unbelievable (both "too good" and "too bad" to be true), that the history of its making and ecclesiastical uses was largely dishonest, corrupting, overtly political, and finally recognizing that I'd never "truly believed" after all but only that I had merely conformed. I'd discovered that I could no long defend the indefensible on the basis of believing the unbelievable. That was 41 years ago, and I've been a freethinker ever since.

NB: The classic arguments in defense of (mono)theism are among the best arguments against 'theism as such' and the few theists who are also cogent, careful, thinkers whom I've ever encountered are uncomfortably aware of this. At the end of the day, they (must) lean heavily on "faith" to "justify" their fact-free beliefs (superstitions). — 180 Proof

@180 Proof, I've been slagging off your posting style quite a bit recently. I think it obscures the points you want to make. This post, however, is an exemplar of clear transparent prose. It's still economical, but not compressed into a zip file.

Thanks for joining that chorus of slaggers. :up: But, truth be told, I've been a Banno-fanboy lately so what the hell ... less (dense style) is more, I guess.

Are we talking about fiat banking? I am so glad we both consider it odd that banks can create money out of nothing and lend it and expect a full return on that loan, plus interest, many times over: talking about imaginary gold coins. :razz:

That said, this struck me as a kind of lazy response. I put a little work into the post you are responding. Perhaps you could directly interact with what I wrote.

Perhaps you could directly interact with what I wrote. — Bylaw

I did. The idea is that in crediting the possibility of the impossible you blur to the point of erasure the distinction between existence and non-existence. Which you are apparently willing to do with gods, but not with gold coins. What's the difference?

Are gods impossible? On my understanding of the word, yes, they're impossible. First of all, there is no concept of god that is not a human concept. The word, then, essentially either defines or it describes. As there has never been anything for it to describe, it must be a definition. But what is the nearly universal understanding of "god"? That it is indescribable, incomprehensible, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived," and so forth. Defining it, then, destroys it. And certainly existence with all of its messy predicates annihilates that existence. So we have an essentially indescribable undefinable incomprehensible existing understood something. Doesn't make any sense, does it.

None of which touches god-as-idea, believed in for the benefits of the belief, and the belief itself a ground for determining what seems best to do. Religion does best when it understands itself. But too many religions only understand themselves as understanding their communicants as stupid and preying on them, spoon-feeding sugar and charging for steak, or whatever the market will bear.

In response the cry of the fond is often, "It could be! It could be!" And there could be a monster under the bed or in the closet. But there isn't. Too many beds have been looked under, too many closets opened and illuminated.

Admission and entry into the existing world has only one requirement: existing. If suffering humanity can't find Him, then He's not here.

I see no interaction here with what I wrote. I do understand what your position is. Rewording it is not necessary. Things like this...

In response the cry of the fond is often, "It could be! It could be!" And there could be a monster under the bed or in the closet. But there isn't. Too many beds have been looked under, too many closets opened and illuminated. — tim wood

have nothing to do with my position, though I am sure it might with other theists' posts and positions. For example.

You made some assertions. Reasserted your conclusions. You made some arguments. But you haven't responded to what I wrote. There is nothing in your responses that even lets on you read what I wrote. It is a response to theist, in general. Which is fine, but it's not a discussion, using the term loosely, for me.

So, I'll focus on other participants.

I think the word supernatural is nonsensical. Of course that can be due to my ontology. But if it is the case, it is not supernatural, it is natural. If it is not the case then it is not real. — Bylaw

With some difficulty I translate this as: not supernatural=natural; not natural=not real.

There were people who believed elephants could communicate over extemely long distances. They were poo pooed, until it was later understood how. It could have been dismissed as a claim the elephants had supernatural powers, but actually it was a claim that they had some kind of natural power. To me if there is a God, it is then natural or real. — Bylaw

Someting about what some people thought about elephants, followed by your if there is a god, then it is natural or real. Which hpypothetical syllogism is easy enough to grant.

If you focus on the word supernatural, it can seem like those people over there operate with an epistemology I do not. If we black box that, then we can look at how we actually decide things are true. As far as I can tell everyone is eclectic epistemologically. — Bylaw

Yes it certainly can seem those folks don't think as I do. But you would ignorance it up in a black box and thereby level the field stylizing both means of understanding as "eclectic." Reasoning that way I can demonstrate that there's no difference between Lebron James' and my basketball skills - for the which neither evidence nor fact can be adduced in support. And then bleh-bleh-bleh about beliefs about things, on the bases of which beliefs people make decisions.

I think in philosophy forums it becomes very binary, as if non-theists use, for any important decision, some kind of empirical research and theists use gut feeling and habit. Then the theists pretend often, that actually they have reasoned their way to certain beliefs based on deduction. While implicitly the other team presents themselves as having one consistent epistemology. They conclude things only via X. But I think both groups are misrepresenting themselves (not all of each group, but many in each group). — Bylaw

More bleh-bleh-bleh about what you think some subgroups of people do under certain circumstances, extrapolating that beyond the circumstance. But in terms of self-representation by those subgroups of their own actions, you think there is some misrepresentation.

My question to you was,

Which leaves the ancient question, do you believe because it's true? Or true (for you) because you believe? It's my bias that it ultimately has to be one or the other. — tim wood

Which you did not answer. I then made the mistake of asking you a simpler question, which apparently you did not comprehend:

I know the difference between an imaginary gold coin and a real gold coin. Do you? — tim wood

And so it seems to that if you could have got out from behind yourself, we might have had a brief, to-the-point exchange about what you think being true means, because I do not think you know what being true means.

1. How have you arrived at your belief that God exists? Was it after some theoretical or logical proofs on God 's existence or some personal religious experience? Or via some other routes?
— Corvus
Not through theoretical proofs. Via experiences. Via working with a tradition and finding that much of what I have been told is the case, and things not obvious, have turned out to at least seem to be true. — Bylaw

So I'll ask that: when you say something is true, what do you mean? It appears you mean that you buy it as true-for-you. But news flash, true-for-you is not true.

With some difficulty I translate this as: not supernatural=natural; not natural=not real. — tim wood

There's the real, which can also be called the natural. If there is a God, God is not supernatural, but part of the real, part of nature or all of nature, perhaps. Both theists and non-theists have run with the idea of the supernaural, sometimes taking it as synonymous with the transcendant. Like we have for naturalists a monism. Nature is all there is. But theists are dualists with a natural and a supernatural. And, yes, some, read some, theists go along with this. But other theists do not. You have phenomena that have been verified via, science say, and you have other phenomena that have not. These latter need not be supernatural. They might not exist or they might, but in neither case need they be supernatural, just phenomena that have not yet been verified. Rogue waves and elephant long distance communication were not supernatural phenomena when they were not verified to the satisfaction of the consensus of scientists, for example. They were purported natural phenomena that did not fit with then current models in science. The people who believed in these phenomena, though often labelled irrational then, were not irrational, even though the phenomena were not verified at that time to a consensus of scientists.

I think the term 'supernatural' muddies the water. It sounds like an ontological or metaphysical category. But it is not one that is necessary for theism or belief in any of the phenomena that get labelled as supernatural.

Someting about what some people thought about elephants, followed by your if there is a god, then it is natural or real. Which hpypothetical syllogism is easy enough to grant. — tim wood

Those were not parts of some syllogism. I was pointing out that what is not currently verified now, in science, need not be a phenomenon that is in some special ontological category. It could be,as elephant communication turned out to be, quite natural.

Obviously this does not mean that God exists. I am paring off this idea that beliefs in unverified phenomena must be beliefs in the supernatural.

Which you did not answer. I then made the mistake of asking you a simpler question, which apparently you did not comprehend:

I know the difference between an imaginary gold coin and a real gold coin. Do you? — tim wood — tim wood

I understood that question.

So I'll ask that: when you say something is true, what do you mean? It appears you mean that you buy it as true-for-you. But news flash, true-for-you is not true. — tim wood

Where did I assume that true for me is true?
Where did I give the impression that I would think an imaginary coin is the same a real coin?

And where did I assume that you should believe something because I do?
It seems implicit that you think I cannot be rational and believe something that I cannot demonstrate is true for you.
Which is precisely why I raised the issue of elephant communication over long distances. The people, at least a nubmer of them, who believed this was real were rational in their belief, even though they could not demonstrate this to others. With rogue waves it took radical changes in technology, iow a long period of time, before it was clear that the people labelled irrational - in their descriptions of rogue waves - were actually rational.

And then implicit in these arguments is the idea that non-theists only believe things that can be demonstrated as true to others. But that just is not the case. They have rigor in some areas, but not in others. And on many issues, we are forced to take stands without being able to demonstrate to others. In other instances we find, to the best of our knowledge, benefits from beliefs that we cannot demonstrate must be JTBeliefs to others.

But that's all off the table. For you it is binary: imaginary or real. And, one presumes, all your beliefs fall neatly into those two categories: your beliefs about parenting, politics, the opposite sex, as a few examples. You restrict yourself only to beliefs that science supports or that you can demonstrate to all (most) rational others. You never have beliefs that seem to work for you and fit your experience unless you can also demonstrate via science or deduction to a consensus of rational others.

That's why I didn't answer your question about gold coins. Apart from how insulting and based on confused readings of my posts. Perhaps my own lack of clarity playing a role, also. I don't always write as clearly as I think I have.

For you.... All your.... Your.... You, you, you — Bylaw

Bad form to tell someone else what they're thinking or what they believe unless you know and get it right, and that for good reason. And you don't.

In this world I find things and ideas. Things and ideas being different. Things exist materially, and their existence seems in all cases to incorporate proof of that existence. Ideas exist in minds and nowhere else, and not materially.

There are those who claim that there are existing things not existing materially, but also not ideas. The only proof of these is the claim that they exist. I file these under beliefs, a category of ideas. That is, as beliefs-as-ideas, immune from need to prove their existence, which in any case cannot be done. But when claimed as independently-of-mind existing, then needing proof of that existence.

You appear to claim material existence of things not ideas and also not material. That moves you to the world where the ticket for admission is proof.

:up:

You appear to claim material existence of things not ideas and also not material. — tim wood

I don't appear to claim that. Which is you saying and claiming things about what I think and precisely why I started responding the way I did with 'you' and 'you' that you think is bad form. You responded to me as if I was a certain kind of theist presenting arguments for the existence of God. And you repeatedly told me, explicitly and implicitly what I thinking.

Here, again, you do not engage with the vast majority of what I wrote.

And can you not see how insulting it is to ask about whether I can the difference between imaginary coins and real ones?

Further at no point have a made a case that you should believe in anything that you would categorize as supernatural.

And that is precisely how you keep taking my posts. I realize that most of the time this kind of laziness is probably a decent heuristic. Many theists are doing what you keep thinking I am doing. But it's laziness nonetheless and you started the condescension and assumptions, so don't start shit you don't like yourself.

I got a generic non-theist rebuttal of points I did not make and one which assumed things about a theist with little or no engagement with what I was actually doing.

You were lazy and rude and this time I will just leave you in your solipsism (not philosophical, but practical solipsism).

This was just facile.

Question 1. I've always known. Question 2. I don't. It's a matter of faith.

If it's a delusion, more fool me!

If it's a delusion, more fool me! — Cuthbert

Here is a quote, I found.

“If one must have faith in order to believe something, or believe in something, then the likelihood of that something having any truth or value is considerably diminished. The harder work of inquiry, proof, and demonstration is infinitely more rewarding, and has confronted us with findings far more "miraculous" and "transcendent" than any theology. Actually, the "leap of faith"—to give it the memorable name that Soren Kierkegaard bestowed upon it—is an imposture. As he himself pointed out, it is not a "leap" that can be made once and for all. It is a leap that has to go on and on being performed, in spite of mounting evidence to the contrary. This effort is actually too much for the human mind, and leads to delusions and manias. Religion understands perfectly well that the "leap" is subject to sharply diminishing returns, which is why it often doesn't in fact rely on "faith" at all but instead corrupts faith and insults reason by offering evidence and pointing to confected "proofs." This evidence and these proofs include arguments from design, revelations, punishments, and miracles. Now that religion's monopoly has been broken, it is within the compass of any human being to see these evidences and proofs as the feeble-minded inventions that they are.”
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything