Why not believe in Thor or Leprechauns?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

See what I mean about propaganda..

We'll add "propaganda" to the ever-lengthening list of terms you don't understand then (see also "philosophical materialism", "physicalism", "burden of proof" etc).

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I thought you wanted to know about my God dodging rather that for me to set up a piece from you about what you think about God dodging. That said, the only real beef I have is your notion that this forum is primarily for debate it isn’t I mean that might be the idea, It has become the home of the Ad hom, a hang for antitheists, propaganda, a home for the posse and the pack, people who operate on the “OI, nutter” principle.......and those are just it’s good points.

Fair point. By ad homs I assume you mean when people accuse others of dishonesty. I don't take it seriously - it's just a forum.

Your idea of God-dodging seems to be ridiculng arguments for gods or ridiculing people who make arguments for gods or both?

As the burden of proof is on the person who makes a positive claim e.g. a claim that God does/ does not exist, people who make assertions about the supernatural must seem mad to atheists. Most of the people on here seem to be in the position of I haven't been presented with any convincing evidence to believe that gods exist e.g you don't believe in Allah and I don't believe Jesus is the Son of God because neither of us find the evidence convincing. We already know atheists don't find the evidence convincing for any gods.

There's not much for people to say on here other then to dismantle other people's positive claims, unless we're on the Jokes thread or music thread etc. I don't know why an atheist would be on a religion thread except to dismantle arguments people make for gods.

I came on here as a Muslim fully expecting to get a verbal kicking from some atheists and theists about Islam. Even some Muslims give each other a verbal kicking about Islam on forums. It's useful knowing what is going through other people's minds and there are always some people who don't hold back on forums unlike IRL, so info gained on forums has helped me when having conversations IRL.

[Spud]

No.

Forgiveness without a blood sacrifice would be better, but...

That would mean allowing us to disobey God perpetually without consequence

Not holding children accountable for the alleged flaws of their forebears...

That isn't the case, as Adam's descendants ultimately make their own choices.

not imposing (or even threatening) eternal, transferrable punishments for a temporal 'crime...

I don't know the answer to this, but maybe it's a bit like having to 'obey' gravity and not jump off a cliff. Gravity is not unfair, it keeps us on the ground: likewise, God's moral laws are not unfair, they enable us to maintain relationships but if we ignore them we are alienated from each other and God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fair point. By ad homs I assume you mean when people accuse others of dishonesty. I don't take it seriously - it's just a forum.

Your idea of God-dodging seems to be ridiculng arguments for gods or ridiculing people who make arguments for gods or both?

As the burden of proof is on the person who makes a positive claim e.g. a claim that God does/ does not exist, people who make assertions about the supernatural must seem mad to atheists. Most of the people on here seem to be in the position of I haven't been presented with any convincing evidence to believe that gods exist e.g you don't believe in Allah and I don't believe Jesus is the Son of God because neither of us find the evidence convincing. We already know atheists don't find the evidence convincing for any gods.

There's not much for people to say on here other then to dismantle other people's positive claims, unless we're on the Jokes thread or music thread etc. I don't know why an atheist would be on a religion thread except to dismantle arguments people make for gods.

I came on here as a Muslim fully expecting to get a verbal kicking from some atheists and theists about Islam. Even some Muslims give each other a verbal kicking about Islam on forums. It's useful knowing what is going through other people's minds and there are always some people who don't hold back on forums unlike IRL, so info gained on forums has helped me when having conversations IRL.

There are brilliant philosophies and beliefs around most are brilliant some diabolical so, most are wrong.

The trouble is people want to play other players rather than the ball. Also people don't seem to want to own any
Weltbilt thinking that things are obvious that what they think is knowledge rather than belief.

I enjoy a bit of knockabout though.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

The trouble is people want to play other players rather than the ball.

Agree

Also people don't seem to want to own any Weltbilt thinking that things are obvious that what they think is knowledge rather than belief.

What is the difference between knowledge and belief? What criteria would you use to decide whether a piece of information is knowledge or whether it is a belief? 

I enjoy a bit of knockabout though.

So do I - but arguing on here takes up a lot of time so I need to take breaks from this board or I never get any work done.

[ProfessorDavey]

What is the difference between knowledge and belief? What criteria would you use to decide whether a piece of information is knowledge or whether it is a belief?

Err ... evidence.

That is surely the critical difference between belief and knowledge - knowledge is based on evidence, while belief is something we think may be the case but we do not have evidence to back up our claim, so we need belief or faith.

So is we use the earth going round the sun as an example - we have ample evidence that this is the case so it is a matter of knowledge, not belief.

On the other hand if we use the existence of god as another example - we have no evidence for this so it is a matter of belief not knowledge.

So, to coin a phrase, belief is a poor man's knowledge where the currency in question is evidence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Agree
 What is the difference between knowledge and belief? What criteria would you use to decide whether a piece of information is knowledge or whether it is a belief?

For me the finest example of confusing what one knows with what one believes has been Bluehillside who has accused me of the fallacy of composition based on an as yet unobserved and unevidenced part of the universe. He can only believe this since that part remains unobserved and unevidenced. Since the fallacy only holds when one takes a part and treats it like a whole. Since I am appealing to the whole evidenced part I am not technically committing the fallacy. He is confusing what he believes with what he knows.

So do I - but arguing on here takes up a lot of time so I need to take breaks from this board or I never get any work done.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

For me the finest example of confusing what one knows with what one believes has been Bluehillside who has accused me of the fallacy of composition based on an as yet unobserved and unevidenced part of the universe. He can only believe this since that part remains unobserved and unevidenced. Since the fallacy only holds when one takes a part and treats it like a whole. Since I am appealing to the whole evidenced part I am not technically committing the fallacy. He is confusing what he believes with what he knows.

Let's park BHS to one side for the moment - we'll get back to him and his beliefs/ accusations later. BHS and I enjoy a good argument so I don't want to get distracted.

How do you Vlad/ Walt decide if a piece of information you have is knowledge or a belief? Preferably with an example of what you consider knowledge and what you consider belief just so I can be clear if we are both using those 2 words the same way.

[Gordon]

For me the finest example of confusing what one knows with what one believes has been Bluehillside who has accused me of the fallacy of composition based on an as yet unobserved and unevidenced part of the universe. He can only believe this since that part remains unobserved and unevidenced. Since the fallacy only holds when one takes a part and treats it like a whole. Since I am appealing to the whole evidenced part I am not technically committing the fallacy. He is confusing what he believes with what he knows.

Nope: when it is pointed out to you that your are deploying a fallacy that is simply a critique of the form of argument you are attempting - but then it is obvious that you don't really understand fallacies anyway.

I'd have thought in your answer to Gabriella's question to might have, for example, mentioned the likes of, say, 'justification'.

[Stranger]

For me the finest example of confusing what one knows with what one believes has been Bluehillside who has accused me of the fallacy of composition based on an as yet unobserved and unevidenced part of the universe. He can only believe this since that part remains unobserved and unevidenced. Since the fallacy only holds when one takes a part and treats it like a whole. Since I am appealing to the whole evidenced part I am not technically committing the fallacy. He is confusing what he believes with what he knows.

In which Vlad shows that he understands neither the fallacy of composition nor the relevance of the unobserved and unknown part of the universe to the burden of proof for his argument. You made two logical errors, not just one, and you don't even seem to get that (well, actually, you've made many more than two errors, but there are two that are relevant to this nonsense).

I would explain it all again, but what's the point? For some reason you seem to be determined to bring up your total confusion (or dishonesty) time and time again and refuse to engage with anybody who explains it to you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Vlad shows that he understands neither the fallacy of composition nor the relevance of the unobserved and unknown part of the universe to the burden of proof for his argument. You made two logical errors, not just one, and you don't even seem to get that (well, actually, you've made many more than two errors, but there are two that are relevant to this nonsense).

I would explain it all again, but what's the point? For some reason you seem to be determined to bring up your total confusion (or dishonesty) time and time again and refuse to engage with anybody who explains it to you.

I have by and large ended by asking if the universe is the necessary entity what is necessary about it knowing full well that anything with parts is contingent.

[Gordon]

I have by and large ended by asking if the universe is the necessary entity what is necessary about it knowing full well that anything with parts is contingent.

Super - how about answering Gabriella's question about how you discriminate between knowledge and belief.

[Stranger]

I have by and large ended by asking if the universe is the necessary entity what is necessary about it knowing full well that anything with parts is contingent.

Quite apart from the problems of you claiming that it can't be, you haven't done any of the work to even get to this question.

• You haven't demonstrated that anything at all is necessary in the sense required by the supposed argument from contingency.
• You haven't said how necessity is defined in this context - there have been three definitions used here, the most recent being relative and hence irrelevant.
• You haven't shown how necessity is a logically coherent possibility (except in the irrelevant sense).
• You haven't shown that there must be only one necessary entity.
• You haven't shown what a necessary entity's characteristics would be - just asserted some, like it can't change and (now) can't have parts.

You don't seem to have any grasp at all of what is required to set out a logical argument.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Super - how about answering Gabriella's question about how you discriminate between knowledge and belief.

Yes please Vlad. I now finally understand what you mean by God dodging so would like to clear up whether you are saying you know God is a necessary being or are you saying it is possible that God is/ isn't a necessary being?

And are you saying it is possible that the universe is/isn't a necessary being?

Would you take out the word "know" and use the word believe in the above sentences?

[Outrider]

That would mean allowing us to disobey God perpetually without consequence.

If god sacrifices god (for the weekend) to god, we haven't paid any consequence anyway. If the sin was inherited before and is still inherited now, we're not forgiven anyway. I fail to see what's allegedly been achieved, even if you accept the premise.

That isn't the case, as Adam's descendants ultimately make their own choices.

I appreciate that the explicit doctrine of 'original sin' is particular to certain sects, but my understanding (and I'm more than happy to be corrected if I'm wrong) is that we are forced to live outside the perfection of the Garden of Eden (eternal life, not wants etc.) because Adam and Even were evicted for THEIR behaviour. We are being punished for their actions, even without the explicit doctrine of original sin. I didn't eat the apple, why am I doomed to die? I can make all the choices I like, but I still die.

I don't know the answer to this, but maybe it's a bit like having to 'obey' gravity and not jump off a cliff. Gravity is not unfair, it keeps us on the ground: likewise, God's moral laws are not unfair, they enable us to maintain relationships but if we ignore them we are alienated from each other and God.

I appreciate the honesty - your faith, presumably, allows you to believe that there is a fairness underlying this even if you cannot immediately see it. All I can tell you is that I can't rationalise a loving God that cares for us or about us, with those particular rules and explanations. I can rationalise gravity being 'unfair' because gravity isn't portrayed as loving, or all powerful, or as the designer. God is all of those, and I can't see how the unfairness - or even just the appearance of unfairness - is his responsibility. As a parent, and as the husband of a teacher, the appearance of at least an attempt at fairness is important in getting 'buy-in', if the system appears rigged there is no reason for people to try to comply with it.

O.

[Bramble]

There's not much for people to say on here other then to dismantle other people's positive claims, unless we're on the Jokes thread or music thread etc. I don't know why an atheist would be on a religion thread except to dismantle arguments people make for gods.

Maybe to learn something?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Maybe to learn something?

As a former atheist, yes when I was an atheist I could politely learn about someone else's beliefs about the supernatural. It's not much different to learning about other people's cultures or philosophies or politics or morals even if you don't share those beliefs.

I think the polite listening probably goes out the window if the other person starts giving you the impression that they think there is something lacking in you (you're less moral, more selfish, less spiritual, less humble etc) because you don't share their beliefs about the supernatural or moral, political or philosophical beliefs. 

At that point it probably becomes more enjoyable to rebuff their self-important egotistical and patronising assumptions... by being egotistical, patronising and condescending to them.   

[ProfessorDavey]

As a former atheist, yes when I was an atheist I could politely learn about someone else's beliefs about the supernatural. It's not much different to learning about other people's cultures or philosophies or politics or morals even if you don't share those beliefs.

I think I've learned all sorts of things about all sorts of stuff from this MB - much nothing to do with religion.

I think the polite listening probably goes out the window if the other person starts giving you the impression that they think there is something lacking in you (you're less moral, more selfish, less spiritual, less humble etc) because you don't share their beliefs about the supernatural or moral, political or philosophical beliefs. 

At that point it probably becomes more enjoyable to rebuff their self-important egotistical and patronising assumptions... by being egotistical, patronising and condescending to them.   

Or by requesting evidence and providing evidence .

But on the broader knock-about stuff, much of the time it is just fun, but it does allow an individual to 'road-test' and hone their arguments. And to borrow from others whose arguments you broadly agree with.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think I've learned all sorts of things about all sorts of stuff from this MB - much nothing to do with religion.

Same here. I don't find it the local posse hangout as Vlad seems to think it is. And I've experienced pile ons especially on the Muslim Board.

Or by requesting evidence and providing evidence .

Agreed.....sometimes in a neutral tone and sometimes in a egotistical, patronising and condescending manner - and sometimes in a very humorous and entertaining way - depending on your perspective /taste.

But on the broader knock-about stuff, much of the time it is just fun, but it does allow an individual to 'road-test' and hone their arguments. And to borrow from others whose arguments you broadly agree with.

Agreed.

[Spud]

If god sacrifices god (for the weekend) to god, we haven't paid any consequence anyway.

We have because we still have to pay the penalty of physical death.

 

If the sin was inherited before and is still inherited now, we're not forgiven anyway. I fail to see what's allegedly been achieved, even if you accept the premise.

We will be able to go back into the garden, so to speak - in the new earth.

I appreciate that the explicit doctrine of 'original sin' is particular to certain sects, but my understanding (and I'm more than happy to be corrected if I'm wrong) is that we are forced to live outside the perfection of the Garden of Eden (eternal life, not wants etc.) because Adam and Even were evicted for THEIR behaviour. We are being punished for their actions, even without the explicit doctrine of original sin. I didn't eat the apple, why am I doomed to die? I can make all the choices I like, but I still die.

Good point, but Jesus was tempted outside the garden, as we are, but he didn't sin. Okay I know he is God, but I don't think that made it easier for him. The temptations continued up until he was on the cross, which he could have come down from.

I appreciate the honesty - your faith, presumably, allows you to believe that there is a fairness underlying this even if you cannot immediately see it. All I can tell you is that I can't rationalise a loving God that cares for us or about us, with those particular rules and explanations. I can rationalise gravity being 'unfair' because gravity isn't portrayed as loving, or all powerful, or as the designer. God is all of those, and I can't see how the unfairness - or even just the appearance of unfairness - is his responsibility. As a parent, and as the husband of a teacher, the appearance of at least an attempt at fairness is important in getting 'buy-in', if the system appears rigged there is no reason for people to try to comply with it.

O.

I guess the example wasn't completely sound. There is the rule over the day and night that was ordained for the sun and moon, so in a sense we have to obey them as well, and they are fundamentally good because they support life.  But yes, I see your point. They aren't designers or loving.
The other idea I had was that as a parent, one knows the child will disobey at times and that potentially the child could perpetually rebel and alienate itself. But we chose to have children, knowing that they may do this, or that we may have to sacrifice ourselves for them (personally I haven't had kids yet but I would guess this becomes a thing for a parent).
Likewise, God chose to create us and give us free will, knowing he would need to save us, so I think it's a good analogy?

[Outrider]

We have because we still have to pay the penalty of physical death.

Which we were doing before the 'sacrifice', so what's changed? What does the 'sacrifice' achieve? And why was it necessary for a loving all-powerful god to demand, commit and accept a sacrifice in order to achieve it?

We will be able to go back into the garden, so to speak - in the new earth.

And what of all the people who've already died? Or is this a 'spiritual' garden, where whatever it is that gets admitted isn't actually me?

Good point, but Jesus was tempted outside the garden, as we are, but he didn't sin. Okay I know he is God, but I don't think that made it easier for him. The temptations continued up until he was on the cross, which he could have come down from.

Assuming that I accept that there was no 'cheating', that he chose to suffer, chose to really die (even if only temporarily)... I still don't see what it was supposed to achieve or why it was necessary. If it was an act of atonement to apologise TO humanity I could understand the gesture - it would still be gratuitous and unnecessary, but it would make sense. But to punish himself, in order to feel able to forgive us for something someone else did... it just sounds deluded.

I guess the example wasn't completely sound. There is the rule over the day and night that was ordained for the sun and moon, so in a sense we have to obey them as well, and they are fundamentally good because they support life.

I see where you're coming from, but I'm not sure that any inanimate object can be 'good' or 'evil' - it simply is, any good or evil comes from how we choose to interact with it. Which is part, I suppose, of the mystique of things like the sun and moon, their inaccessibility means that they're sort of immune to our exhortations (to borrow a phrase), their indifference should be humbling if we took long enough to think about it.

The other idea I had was that as a parent, one knows the child will disobey at times and that potentially the child could perpetually rebel and alienate itself. But we chose to have children, knowing that they may do this, or that we may have to sacrifice ourselves for them (personally I haven't had kids yet but I would guess this becomes a thing for a parent).

I'm up to four now, and it's a fear at times. That fear, though, comes about because as parents we're imperfect - we can't absolutely predict how our encouragements and penalties are going to be taken, we can't know the exact state of mind of our children, what else has impacted them on any given day, and how all those little bits will add up. God is depicted as though he can... could a perfectly loving, all-knowing being be anything less than the ideal parental figure?

Likewise, God chose to create us and give us free will, knowing he would need to save us, so I think it's a good analogy?

I know it's not intended as an 'excuse', but free-will always feel like it's being deployed as a sort of 'get out of jail free' card. Notwithstanding the biological and physical evidence that suggests free-will is an illusion, and that our future is already defined, as soon as free-will is put on the table philosophically god is no longer all-knowing. If the future can be altered, god is no longer all-powerful - even if that loss is a decision on his part. And if god is not all-knowing and all-powerful, is it still god?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes please Vlad. I now finally understand what you mean by God dodging so would like to clear up whether you are saying you know God is a necessary being or are you saying it is possible that God is/ isn't a necessary being?

And are you saying it is possible that the universe is/isn't a necessary being?

Would you take out the word "know" and use the word believe in the above sentences?

First of all I am aware that things which cannot be falsified are generally termed beliefs. I would not personally have put forward your knowledge , belief dichotomy, I think that is too simple and I'd put experience in there too as many members will have noticed.

The ultimate thing in the universe is where I started. I found myself unusually moved and energised by Carl Sagans TV epic Cosmos. Shortly afterwards I was introduced to CS Lewis and his writings about the numinous helped me make sense of what had been stirred in me by Sagan. While reading Lewis
and getting to the bottom of the numinous ultimate thing I became aware of what was beyond Lewises words and beyond the numinous.

I read more of Lewis on christianity, the bible became clearer to me, the moral argument became comprehensible to me in the light of my experience but eventually I encountered Jesus call in The new testament rev 3.20 and at the same point I became aware of God's holiness at which point after a short struggle I gave in and offered him all I was. You see, we have experiences that are beyond words and yet we are forced to use the appropriate word framework to describe them and for me the agnostic british wordframe petered out as an explanatory tool quite early on in the journey
 
Is the universe the necessary being....well you're not and I'm not and Alpha centuri isn't we are part of the universe. So how can 'the universe' be the necessary entity? Secondly, from the best definition of contingency i've seen....the Merriam webster dictionary.....a contingent thing is something which is dependent on and conditioned by. This gives us an idea of what necessity and the necessary entity must be like and as Aquinus has pointed out that fits what we call God better. He is not dependent (sovereign)and he isn't conditioned by.

So since I see ''getting religion'' as movements from one thing to another, from the outside toward the centre.....what moved you from the poetry of the quran to Allah?

[jeremyp]

That would mean allowing us to disobey God perpetually without consequence

How would it be different to the current circumstances except that God wouldn't have had to give up a weekend?

That isn't the case, as Adam's descendants ultimately make their own choices.

Do you disagree with the concept of original sin then?

I don't know the answer to this, but maybe it's a bit like having to 'obey' gravity and not jump off a cliff. Gravity is not unfair, it keeps us on the ground:

Gravity is a physical law. It's not a sentient being that claims to love us Christians claim loves us.

likewise, God's moral laws are not unfair

Eternal punishment for temporal crimes seems somewhat unfair. Furthermore, some people can get away with their crimes just by turning to Christ it seems. God will let you off, but only if you have heard of Christianity and only if you are credulous enough to believe in what is an incoherent story with more holes than Blackburn, Lancashire.

[Stranger]

Is the universe the necessary being....

You're still bringing this up as if you'd established it and/or everybody already accepted that there must be such a thing. This is simply not the case. It's dishonest, effectively bearing false witness, to treat it as such.

So how can 'the universe' be the necessary entity?

Even if we'd established that there must be such an entity, then it would be up to you to rule the universe out. Something else you haven't done. The fallacy of composition and making assumptions about what we cannot observe doesn't cut it.

Secondly, from the best definition of contingency i've seen....the Merriam webster dictionary.....a contingent thing is something which is dependent on and conditioned by. This gives us an idea of what necessity and the necessary entity must be like...

Yet you cannot or will not provide the reasoning. All you've ever done is make baseless assertions about it.

[ProfessorDavey]

Is the universe the necessary being....

You are getting way, way ahead of yourself Vlad. That is like asking is strawberry the preferred flavour of gum chewed by Martians.

Before you come close to asking that question you need to go through the following steps:

1. You need a clear and agreed definition of a necessary entity.
2. You need to clearly define what a necessary being is and why it is distinct from a necessary entity as defined in 1.
3. You need to provide compelling evidence that there is a necessary being

Only then can you start to discuss whether the universe is that necessary being.

But you've not even got beyond 1 yet Vlad.