Right I agree it would be necessary if it really were the case. The problem is I don't think we can make the generalization that religious belief and convictions are all the result of these psychological deficiencies. The general public, I believe, is very prone to these mistakes. But to a person who is aware of their bias and psychological shortcomings and does their best to counteract and divert them? I am very wary to describe the same to them.

Atheists and theists often throw these things at eachother a lot too. "You are too rebellious to believe in a God! You just don't want to be told what to do!" or "You are simply afraid of the harsh reality of life. You escape to God!" I just feel like it doesn't cut it.

The problem is I don't think we can make the generalization that religious belief and convictions are all the result of these psychological deficiencies — DoppyTheElv

You and I will not be talking again. It is clear to me that you are not serious, I took a chance because you said you were, although I had my suspicions. If you are serious you will have to inform yourself by educating yourself. I have already given you a place to start. I wish you all the best.

You are quick to make decisions I suppose. I am honest as can be when I say that I am as serious as possible. And I have told you that I do not hold steadfast beliefs about reality. Only convictions that SEEM true to me. You've given me psychology and I've told you why I have issues with it at first glace.

You don't have to give an answer. But then at least don't go spouting around that I'm an insincere troll.

But then at least don't go spouting around that I'm an insincere troll. — DoppyTheElv

I never said this. These are not my words.

You said I was not being serious. I take that (Pun intended) very seriously.

how ever do you get out of this circle once you enter in? — JerseyFlight

If the intellect is to discern truth its only hope is if it is allied to consciousness.

edit

@JerseyFlight

We'll find out over the course of time whether you are a serious thinker. I suppose you are a Libertarian? So am i.

The purpose of philosophy is to teach us that the intellect cannot attain truth. — EnPassant

Casting my vote for this.

It is clear to me that you are not serious, I took a chance because you said you were, although I had my suspicions. If you are serious you will have to inform yourself by educating yourself. — JerseyFlight

You will sound more serious when you drop this ego positioning drumbeat which seems to infect quite a bit of your writing. Not claiming to be above it myself, just claiming it's not evidence of seriousness.

I suppose you are a Libertarian? — turkeyMan

Assuredly not. Libertarians are not serious thinkers, but they are ideological thinkers, their approach to the world is fallaciously monological. To be a real Libertarian you must believe in magic, specifically the fairy tale of self-balancing markets. G. A. Cohen long ago obliterated their position. Libertarians present a serious threat to freedom and democracy.

The universe is an image of God's nature — EnPassant

And the universe is overwhelmingly space. Thus, the nature of space would seem to deserve a great deal more focus from theists. This is equally true for the atheist, whose methodology is the observation of reality.

We can see that reality is overwhelmingly dominated by what we typically label as "nothing". Thus, a serious philosophy aligned with the nature of reality would also be mostly nothing.

Philosophy can assist in reaching such a rational state by a process of systematic challenge to all intellectual somethings. Religion is demolished. Atheism is demolished. Philosophy itself is demolished. And we are left with mostly nothing, a state of mind which most closely resembles reality.

We might learn from astronomers. We can observe how the majority of their work seems to be focused on things in space, phenomena which represents only the tiniest fraction of the cosmos. Philosophers are like that. We focus on things in mind, only the tiniest fraction of consciousness.

Another method of approaching such a place might be to shift the focus of such investigations from explanations to experience. It's perhaps more efficient to leap over the process of challenging every idea on these subjects, and instead focus on finding out how deep in to our relationship with (insert any label here) we can go.

Assuredly not. Libertarians are not serious thinkers, but they are ideological thinkers, their approach to the world is fallaciously monological. To be a real Libertarian you must believe in magic, specifically the fairy tale of self-balancing markets. G. A. Cohen long ago obliterated their position. Libertarians present a serious threat to freedom and democracy. — JerseyFlight

ok.

Assuredly not. Libertarians are not serious thinkers, but they are ideological thinkers, their approach to the world is fallaciously monological. — JerseyFlight

You seem to be very elitist when its about who is a serious thinker or not :brow:

The OP tried to cram the teleological argument into the cosmological argument to form one argument. They are not necessarily connected. And he said the world has to be the way it is yet he thinks God could have created different. What a waste of a thread imo

Gregory

"the world could have any shape, size, qualities, anything you can imagine" In fact, that is not true unless one does not care about the consequences. The restrictions are extremely tight if one wants to have a world that can support life. It that requirement is not necessary then yes, there are many possibilities but there are still restrictions. For example, it is impossible to make a coffee cup the size of Earth. Gravity would cause it to collapse into a ball-like structure. By the way, one can calculate the size of the largest living organism that could exist on the surface of the Earth just based of the strength of interaction between atoms. (I cannot do that but I've read the paper that reported the calculation).
On another subject, you asked, can God be made of energy? I would say no, at least energy as we know it. God cannot be made of anything created because He existed before creation.

I want to thank everyone for an interesting discussion. My conclusion is that the initial assertion stands. The corollary is that atheism is fundamentally irrational.
I feel that I need to move on as I do not quite fit in. There is a lot of sparring in the discussion that indicates a young crowd. It reminds me of young bulls testing their strength (applies to both women and men). This is not a negative just an observation.
Have fun....

My conclusion is that the initial assertion stands. — Marco Colombini

A bit like The Emperor's New Clothes?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/443851
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/443873
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/443892
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/443895
...

(your responses have to be on point and adequate to be of much consequence)

God as the answer to any unanswered question. — Banno

I didn't think you were religious Banno.

The problem is I don't think we can make the generalization that religious belief and convictions are all the result of these psychological deficiencies. — DoppyTheElv

These arise for many reasons, but when you are talking about belief in the imaginary, unless you are talking about Deism, which could be leveraged though it wouldn't matter, you are talking about some kind of psychological or emotional motivation. Those who come to religious belief in terms of propaganda, apologetics, are manipulated, victims of their own ignorance. So here the cause, though it has an ideological base, it is still premised on the negative. People give all kinds of reasons for their beliefs, but these often only serve to mask the real psychological motivations. We can sometimes discover these by probing their negative convictions. Above all, we know there's a problem when a rationale for the belief is legitimately refuted and the subject merely looks for something else by which to retain the belief. This is a good indication that one is being driven by their psychology.

When you talk about belief in the imaginary do you solely speak to theism or does every belief a person has have hidden psychological motivations? I can certainly see your point and I think it's true in a whole number of cases but it can be said about anyone, no?

Those who come to religious belief in terms of propaganda, apologetics, are manipulated, victims of their own ignorance. So here the cause, though it has an ideological base, it is still premised on the negative. People give all kinds of reasons for their beliefs, but these often only serve to mask the real psychological motivations. — JerseyFlight

I think that someone could come to belief in God through philosophy and that they could have good reason for it. Usually God's existence itself doesn't guarantee or promise a whole lot to a person. When religions get added to the scene, like Christianity. A whole lot of promises and actions are attributed to this God. And that, I think, is where the danger of psychological motivation comes from. But I still believe that if someone is aware of their motivations, unless you think that is not possible, could reflect on those and their belief so that their reasoning is more distanced from bias. If this weren't possible then bias was the biggest undefeatable enemy in philosophy.

Above all, we know there's a problem when a rationale for the belief is legitimately refuted and the subject merely looks for something else by which to retain the belief. This is a good indication that one is being driven by their psychology. — JerseyFlight

Well look at it this way. You are a fan of Hegel. I haven't a clue what he argues for and who he was (I know shame on me). But if someone were to come up to you and falsify the reason you have for holding the same positions as he had. Would you not first go back and read his material over? Rethink your entire situation? If by the end of this reflection you have found new or improved reasons or found out that the attack is somehow wrong then is that not a valid thing? It doesn't make sense to me that if some random guy on the internet broke down my entire reasoning that I would simply say "okay, i'm X now". No I would reflect and rethink. And If you are honest to yourself and you acknowledge that the objections are true then you would change beliefs. Because who wants false beliefs?

Thank you for replying though.

It seems to me that being so strict about what it means to know is counterproductive. Despite our limitations it is very useful to arrive at an understanding of any process knowing that that understanding may need to be modified as more information becomes available. To simply say that something is unknowable is to abandon the search for truth. Although truth is absolute, knowledge is graded. — Marco Colombini

It's not counterproductive to admit there is no way out of the philosophical skeptics thought experiments.

The problem with mathematical models of real systems is that they often do not include all aspects of the system. Noether's theorem does not apply to dissipative systems and that aspect of dissipation is a critical property of the universe. I must disagree that energy is a purely mathematical entity as this statement seems to me to imply that it is theoretical and not real. — Marco Colombini

You are probably right about energy conservation not applying to our universe as there are energy conservation issues inherent to the universe but inherent to general relativity itself.

The theoretical doesn't equal "not being real" as newtonian gravitational theory and its applications are indubitably as real as the phenomenon it purportedly (on solar system scales) describes so well. There is a map and a terrain but because the map isn't the terrain (we have to admit this) this doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Regardless of the incompleteness of existing theories when applied to the extreme conditions present in the very early universe, the evidence for the extreme conditions in that early universe is extremely strong. The backward extrapolation leads to a singularity beyond which is unknown territory. The logical conclusions are either the moment of creation or some process totally outside known science. Creation from nothing by God is not a problem…not science fiction. — Marco Colombini

Creation from nothing may not be "science fiction" but i'll wait to see in what manner it isn't outright contradictory/non-existent from everyday experiences. You cannot get something from nothing and thusly something always was with the capability to be what is the case now.

If a fundamental constant, such as the gravitational constant, could have a continuum of values then there can be an infinite number of possible values. If the correct value is to be obtained at random, without any intelligence, one needs to propose an infinite number of universes each with a different value of G for one of these to have the correct value. Since there are many fundamental constants, to generate by random chance the correct set of values (as these are interdependent in terms of overall outcome) again we need an infinite number of trials. Our universe would have to be one of a very very small number with one of the correct set of values that would result in a universe that would produce intelligent life. All the failed universes would need to somehow exist. These are all undetectable and unverifiable parameters in a rather unattractive theory. — Marco Colombini

"Could" is the key word here as you are working off of conceptual possibilities and not nomological/metaphysical possibilities of whether it actually is the case the universe (the observable one) as we know it COULD have actually been any other way.

I am using “explain” in the sense of common usage…to state why things are as they are. Why is the universe so finely tuned to result in the formation of intelligent life and yet it will not reach some steady state where life can exist but rather end up totally dead. In my mind the best explanation is that God created it as such because this is our temporary home. Of course, that is an explanation that strict materialistic science cannot convey. — Marco Colombini

Or this is a question/issue that gives no readily accessible nor understandable reason to human minds. It's one thing to search for an answer to a meaningful question it's another to look for an answer to a meaningless question. Does this question deserve a humanly understandable reason or a reason at all?

In fact, only very small scale “reversals” are possible. It’s more that individual elements in the system can probabilistically move to higher energy states transiently even though the overall population must follow the thermodynamically determined direction. Clearly the universe is a very large population of fundamental particles and it continues to proceed as determined by thermodynamics. In this universe entropy must increase. There is no new big bang in reality. — Marco Colombini

The universe isn't just a small collection of particles as even empty space is seemingly filled with quantum fluctuations and at smaller scales the potential emergence of spacetime itself from unknown quantum properties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_recurrence_theorem#Quantum_mechanical_version

Materialistic science alone cannot go any further. Because of our severe limitations in our ability to gain knowledge (as you as so well stated) we cannot have any information about God except what is revealed by God. — Marco Colombini

"Revealed by god" is an extremely loaded term on your part as it's implied interactions between god and our universe (or information about him) is unobtainable through scientific investigation (pragmatic epistemology or the literal use of our experiences) it seems that you wouldn't really have much of a case for saying whether a certain natural event was "caused" by said entity. As i've asked in other places, "what distinguishes a finite in time universe that just is and a universe that is created by a god like being (something i'm not sure you have actually defined)?" IF we cannot tell the difference between them then why ask for the likelihood or prefer the god hypothesis over the "universe created five minutes ago" hypothesis.

To be fair and unbiased, the bible is a collection of books. Some are historical, others poetic, others share words of wisdom… The historical books should be treated as any other historical books. They described the events that happened. To discount events that are scientifically impossible is to be biased against the possibility that such events can take place. — Marco Colombini

It's to point out that our full understanding currently of what is possible or could occur rules out such a scenario.

The descriptions are highly credible as is the skeptical nature of those present. These extraordinary events had such an impact on the culture that some of those are still celebrated today (e.g. Passover). If scientific study leads to the conclusion that the best hypothesis is the existence of God as creator of the universe then one might expect revelation of His existence and actions to influence the social progress. Setting the correct initial conditions and properties of the universe were very likely sufficient to eventually produce intelligent life but then knowledge of God and of the purpose of existence had to be revealed. — Marco Colombini

The apparent skeptical nature of those present as they were claimed (claimed not proven) to be skeptical observers who then observed said natural event that has never occurred since then. The bible doesn't give us external sources covering who these people were and their independent accounts but rather claims there were many observers, that they were skeptical, had observed such a miraculous event, and that such an event was seen to be the same among many independent observers. The problem with this is contained in passages in which Jesus is proclaimed to have performed miracles among thousands but people forget that together with the claim that he performed said rare occurrence the bible also is claiming that there were thousands who observed the event occur declaring (without coercion or group delusion or was too far in the back of the audience to see it) exactly what had happened without much difference among their testimonials. Scrapping the bottom of the barrel there were four writes of the gospels (mildly influenced perhaps by each other) and they alone are supposed to have told the completely UNBIASED story of the bible as well as declare exactly what it's that OTHERS saw. . . without us being able to every get their side of the story.

The existence of God naturally explains all these — Marco Colombini

Science has more qualifiers (arguably) than just its theories need to be falsifiable and it must settle with the simplest explanation.

The other qualifiers of science are its usablitiy of theories, repeatability of experiments, and value as a predictive source. God-explanation beautifully cuts through all the knibs and knabs, but fails at all other requirement to be scientific, save for being the simplest explanation.

H1: Established Physics can explain all observations and thus there is no God.
H2: Established Physics fails fundamentally and God is necessary — Marco Colombini

But we don't need to choose between those two hypotheses. For example, one could choose to argue that physics incomplete, we don't know everything via physics (yet). And then the physicist can add his own thought that he has no evidence of a God, so he goes on either considering himself an agnostic or an atheist.

Also what you are doing in in the OP is not being done scientifically. It's pure and problematic deduction.

I'm a theist, but that was not a convincing argument.

The existence of God naturally explains all these and gives a purpose to existence. — Marco Colombini

What you fail to acknowledge here is that you are asserting that a god exists as an explanation for things needing to be created by a god existing. It's circular. The presupposition "god must exist because _____" is not proof of its existence.