Why don't you believe in God?

[Anonymous]

Oops, wrong verb tense, sorry.

[Anonymous]

Occam's razor has been brought up by several nonbelievers as if it is definitive proof that God does not exist. As Inigo Montoya says in The Princess Bride, "You keep on saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

OR is itself a theory about shifting the burden of proof between hypotheses. It is not an incontrovertible law of physical science. It is itself a hypothesis, and an often misunderstood one at that.

The author of this hypothesis was a Catholic priest and logician who believed in God.

It gets amusing to watch nonbelievers state that ANY alternative hypothesis of creation MUST be more plausible than God, because God is impossible. So an infinity of successive universes, a "spontaneous creation" of everything from nothing for no reason, a black hole...all of these things are more plausible than an Uncaused Cause.

OK, if that is your faith, I can respect your free will to believe as you will. I just hope you don't decide to form a society based on that premise. Those societies have not worked out so well for the people living in them.

[Anonymous]

If you don't believe in God, do you believe in souls? Do you think you have a soul?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Either someone started everything from nothing (theists)

Or nothing started everything from nothing (atheists).

Not quite. Once again because it looks like you missed it:

The theist's position is that "Nothing started something from nothing (which is essentially the atheist's position), then that Someone started everything from nothing (theists)."

Atheists win by Occam's Razor. At least if theists want to keep the fig-leaf of rationality. Probably wiser to admit "it makes no sense, but it's what I believe" which is what others have said.

I'm not PP, but I think I missed it, too. Atheists think no one started everything, where as theists think someone started everything, no?

No, theists think that no one started everything as well: there was nothing, then there was God, then there was everything. Atheists think there was nothing, then there was a singularity, then there was everything.

Calling the singularity "God" gets us no closer to understanding. Actually further, since there's the possibility physics will uncover the provenance of the singularity; theists want to shut down the operation.

Ok, got it this time. Thanks.

Not sure what you mean by singularity, though. Why can't the singularity be God? One could argue that physics theories and laws are just a human effort to describe the world around them. The same way people use religion. Could be that both serve the exact same purpose for the human race.

No, absolutely. Let's call the singularity "God". But that's just a matter of semantics. We still don't get the super-human powers (omniscience, omnipotence, etc...) I think you're right about the second bit, though. Far be it for me to try to take God away from the theists. Just answering the topic: we don't generally believe in god because it's irrational to do so. That's the "faith" bit.

I like you, PP!

How do you explain things that can't be explained through science? Do you believe in fate or destiny? Or only in conicidences? When you hear stories from people who have had near death experiences, do you believe there is a scientific explanation for everything?

To me, God is as real as my computer screen or keyboard. I feel it in a way that makes it as tangible and "real" as the love I feel for my children. But I am pretty far out there in a lot of ways. I also believe in soul mates. I know a lot of the scientific types would see me as a lost cause.

Not sure there are "things that can't be explained through science". There are things that haven't been explained, but that's the beauty of the open-ended system. As far as things like near death experiences, true romantic love, and the beauty of a sunset, all these things are wonderful. I'm incredibly lucky and thankful that against incalculable odds, I was born--and that my daughter was born as well--whom I love more than anything. If it were all taken away tomorrow, I'd still feel as though my existence were "miraclulous" in a non-religious sense, and would cherish the short, precious time I'd been allotted.

Not sure what "god" gets me over and above that, other than as a distraction from the work at hand of savoring the gift of life in this improbable universe.

[P.S.: Consider any references to "gifts" etc... as poetic license, not evidence of a "Giver" ]

So you have faith that science will explain everything eventually? That is belief in the unseen. It is possible science cannot explain everything eventually. It is possible our finite human minds cannot comprehend all there is, was, and will be. Your "open-ended system" is a belief system based on desire, not facts. And the science of statistics and probability works strongly against the odds of explanations for life based on chance.

And it is interesting, isn't it, that a gift presupposes a Giver, existence presupposes a Creator, order presupposes intelligence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you don't believe in God, do you believe in souls? Do you think you have a soul?

I don't believe in souls or think that I have a soul. Souls are a religious concept - no evidence of their actual existence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
If you don't believe in God, do you believe in souls? Do you think you have a soul?

I don't believe in souls or think that I have a soul. Souls are a religious concept - no evidence of their actual existence.

There is no "evidence" for love, either, but I'm guessing you believe in that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If you don't believe in God, do you believe in souls? Do you think you have a soul?

I don't believe in souls or think that I have a soul. Souls are a religious concept - no evidence of their actual existence.

There is no "evidence" for love, either, but I'm guessing you believe in that.

You don't seem to understand what the word "evidence" means. THere is plenty of evidence for love.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Occam's razor has been brought up by several nonbelievers as if it is definitive proof that God does not exist. As Inigo Montoya says in The Princess Bride, "You keep on saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

OR is itself a theory about shifting the burden of proof between hypotheses. It is not an incontrovertible law of physical science. It is itself a hypothesis, and an often misunderstood one at that.

The author of this hypothesis was a Catholic priest and logician who believed in God.

This is just tap-dancing. The funny thing is, you're correct in your characterization of OR, but you don't seem to understand the implication of what those words mean. Bertrand Russell offered what he called "a form of Occam's Razor" which was "Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities."

Your "god hypothesis" has the greater burden of proof, because 1) it is more complex, and 2) it has *less* explanatory power than the infinite succession of universes hypothesis. The only reason theists don't think so is because they fallaciously start with the assumption that an infinitely complex god exists, and work their way backwards.

From wikipedia:

William of Ockham himself was a theist. He believed in God, and thus in some validity of scripture; he writes that “nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident (literally, known through itself) or known by experience or proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture.”[38] In Ockham's view, an explanation which does not harmonize with reason, experience or the aforementioned sources cannot be considered valid. However, unlike many theologians of his time, Ockham did not believe God could be logically proven with arguments. In fact, he thought that science actually seemed to eliminate God according to the Razor's criteria

Since we're talking about amusing things, what's really amusing is the argument offered up by an adult, that OR supports the god hypothesis because Occam himself was a believer. It's like arguing that electric light bulbs cannot illuminate blue rooms because Edison hated that color. Simply comical.

It gets amusing to watch nonbelievers state that ANY alternative hypothesis of creation MUST be more plausible than God, because God is impossible. So an infinity of successive universes, a "spontaneous creation" of everything from nothing for no reason, a black hole...all of these things are more plausible than an Uncaused Cause.

Wrong, you're apparently still not paying attention. The God hypothesis isn't "impossible", but God doesn't get special privileged status on your say so. If rationalists have to deliver a valid story for the origin of the singularity, believers need to do so for "God". Just saying "he's an uncaused cause" is casuistry--in the perjorative sense. Our story is that there's this fairly well-understood phenomenon, but we don't know how it came to be yet. Yours is that there's this mystical force for which there's no concrete evidence whatsoever. But how did it come to be? Ah! See, it didn't! It's always been there.

Puh-leeze.

OK, if that is your faith, I can respect your free will to believe as you will. I just hope you don't decide to form a society based on that premise. Those societies have not worked out so well for the people living in them.

More silliness. As though the long succession of holocausts wrought by irrational societies founded on organized religion is somehow preferable to the handful wrought irrational societies founded on personality cults.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
If you don't believe in God, do you believe in souls? Do you think you have a soul?

I don't believe in souls or think that I have a soul. Souls are a religious concept - no evidence of their actual existence.

There is no "evidence" for love, either, but I'm guessing you believe in that.

You don't seem to understand what the word "evidence" means. THere is plenty of evidence for love.

Now now, no need to get all snippy! Evidence in scientific language usually means something you can measure or prove. You can't measure love or prove it exists. We just know it because it is an "evidentiary experience" - something we know exists because we experience it. I would argue souls are similar. People that believe in souls know they exist because they can feel them the same way you feel love.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
It gets amusing to watch nonbelievers state that ANY alternative hypothesis of creation MUST be more plausible than God, because God is impossible. So an infinity of successive universes, a "spontaneous creation" of everything from nothing for no reason, a black hole...all of these things are more plausible than an Uncaused Cause.

I don't think anyone has said that God is impossible. I think the PPs here would just say God is unlikely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Occam's razor has been brought up by several nonbelievers as if it is definitive proof that God does not exist. As Inigo Montoya says in The Princess Bride, "You keep on saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

OR is itself a theory about shifting the burden of proof between hypotheses. It is not an incontrovertible law of physical science. It is itself a hypothesis, and an often misunderstood one at that.

The author of this hypothesis was a Catholic priest and logician who believed in God.

This is just tap-dancing. The funny thing is, you're correct in your characterization of OR, but you don't seem to understand the implication of what those words mean. Bertrand Russell offered what he called "a form of Occam's Razor" which was "Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities."

Your "god hypothesis" has the greater burden of proof, because 1) it is more complex, and 2) it has *less* explanatory power than the infinite succession of universes hypothesis. The only reason theists don't think so is because they fallaciously start with the assumption that an infinitely complex god exists, and work their way backwards.

From wikipedia:

William of Ockham himself was a theist. He believed in God, and thus in some validity of scripture; he writes that “nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident (literally, known through itself) or known by experience or proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture.”[38] In Ockham's view, an explanation which does not harmonize with reason, experience or the aforementioned sources cannot be considered valid. However, unlike many theologians of his time, Ockham did not believe God could be logically proven with arguments. In fact, he thought that science actually seemed to eliminate God according to the Razor's criteria

Since we're talking about amusing things, what's really amusing is the argument offered up by an adult, that OR supports the god hypothesis because Occam himself was a believer. It's like arguing that electric light bulbs cannot illuminate blue rooms because Edison hated that color. Simply comical.

It gets amusing to watch nonbelievers state that ANY alternative hypothesis of creation MUST be more plausible than God, because God is impossible. So an infinity of successive universes, a "spontaneous creation" of everything from nothing for no reason, a black hole...all of these things are more plausible than an Uncaused Cause.

Wrong, you're apparently still not paying attention. The God hypothesis isn't "impossible", but God doesn't get special privileged status on your say so. If rationalists have to deliver a valid story for the origin of the singularity, believers need to do so for "God". Just saying "he's an uncaused cause" is casuistry--in the perjorative sense. Our story is that there's this fairly well-understood phenomenon, but we don't know how it came to be yet. Yours is that there's this mystical force for which there's no concrete evidence whatsoever. But how did it come to be? Ah! See, it didn't! It's always been there.

Puh-leeze.

OK, if that is your faith, I can respect your free will to believe as you will. I just hope you don't decide to form a society based on that premise. Those societies have not worked out so well for the people living in them.

More silliness. As though the long succession of holocausts wrought by irrational societies founded on organized religion is somehow preferable to the handful wrought irrational societies founded on personality cults.

So then you are not an atheist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Either someone started everything from nothing (theists)

Or nothing started everything from nothing (atheists).

Not quite. Once again because it looks like you missed it:

The theist's position is that "Nothing started something from nothing (which is essentially the atheist's position), then that Someone started everything from nothing (theists)."

Atheists win by Occam's Razor. At least if theists want to keep the fig-leaf of rationality. Probably wiser to admit "it makes no sense, but it's what I believe" which is what others have said.

I'm not PP, but I think I missed it, too. Atheists think no one started everything, where as theists think someone started everything, no?

No, theists think that no one started everything as well: there was nothing, then there was God, then there was everything. Atheists think there was nothing, then there was a singularity, then there was everything.

Calling the singularity "God" gets us no closer to understanding. Actually further, since there's the possibility physics will uncover the provenance of the singularity; theists want to shut down the operation.

Ok, got it this time. Thanks.

Not sure what you mean by singularity, though. Why can't the singularity be God? One could argue that physics theories and laws are just a human effort to describe the world around them. The same way people use religion. Could be that both serve the exact same purpose for the human race.

No, absolutely. Let's call the singularity "God". But that's just a matter of semantics. We still don't get the super-human powers (omniscience, omnipotence, etc...) I think you're right about the second bit, though. Far be it for me to try to take God away from the theists. Just answering the topic: we don't generally believe in god because it's irrational to do so. That's the "faith" bit.

I like you, PP!

How do you explain things that can't be explained through science? Do you believe in fate or destiny? Or only in conicidences? When you hear stories from people who have had near death experiences, do you believe there is a scientific explanation for everything?

To me, God is as real as my computer screen or keyboard. I feel it in a way that makes it as tangible and "real" as the love I feel for my children. But I am pretty far out there in a lot of ways. I also believe in soul mates. I know a lot of the scientific types would see me as a lost cause.

Not sure there are "things that can't be explained through science". There are things that haven't been explained, but that's the beauty of the open-ended system. As far as things like near death experiences, true romantic love, and the beauty of a sunset, all these things are wonderful. I'm incredibly lucky and thankful that against incalculable odds, I was born--and that my daughter was born as well--whom I love more than anything. If it were all taken away tomorrow, I'd still feel as though my existence were "miraclulous" in a non-religious sense, and would cherish the short, precious time I'd been allotted.

Not sure what "god" gets me over and above that, other than as a distraction from the work at hand of savoring the gift of life in this improbable universe.

[P.S.: Consider any references to "gifts" etc... as poetic license, not evidence of a "Giver" ]

So you have faith that science will explain everything eventually? That is belief in the unseen. It is possible science cannot explain everything eventually. It is possible our finite human minds cannot comprehend all there is, was, and will be. Your "open-ended system" is a belief system based on desire, not facts. And the science of statistics and probability works strongly against the odds of explanations for life based on chance.

Nope, I don't have faith science will explain everything eventually. Saying that the scientific framework is one in which all physical phenomena can be explained is different than saying that all physical phenomena *will* be explained.

And it is interesting, isn't it, that a gift presupposes a Giver, existence presupposes a Creator, order presupposes intelligence?

And nope, you should look up "fallacy of reification". If I find a dollar on the ground, and I call that "a gift", that presupposes no Giver, capitalized or not. If you need to, you can mentally convert all metaphor to simile in my comments from here on out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Occam's razor has been brought up by several nonbelievers as if it is definitive proof that God does not exist. As Inigo Montoya says in The Princess Bride, "You keep on saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

OR is itself a theory about shifting the burden of proof between hypotheses. It is not an incontrovertible law of physical science. It is itself a hypothesis, and an often misunderstood one at that.

The author of this hypothesis was a Catholic priest and logician who believed in God.

This is just tap-dancing. The funny thing is, you're correct in your characterization of OR, but you don't seem to understand the implication of what those words mean. Bertrand Russell offered what he called "a form of Occam's Razor" which was "Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities."

Your "god hypothesis" has the greater burden of proof, because 1) it is more complex, and 2) it has *less* explanatory power than the infinite succession of universes hypothesis. The only reason theists don't think so is because they fallaciously start with the assumption that an infinitely complex god exists, and work their way backwards.

From wikipedia:

William of Ockham himself was a theist. He believed in God, and thus in some validity of scripture; he writes that “nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident (literally, known through itself) or known by experience or proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture.”[38] In Ockham's view, an explanation which does not harmonize with reason, experience or the aforementioned sources cannot be considered valid. However, unlike many theologians of his time, Ockham did not believe God could be logically proven with arguments. In fact, he thought that science actually seemed to eliminate God according to the Razor's criteria

Since we're talking about amusing things, what's really amusing is the argument offered up by an adult, that OR supports the god hypothesis because Occam himself was a believer. It's like arguing that electric light bulbs cannot illuminate blue rooms because Edison hated that color. Simply comical.

It gets amusing to watch nonbelievers state that ANY alternative hypothesis of creation MUST be more plausible than God, because God is impossible. So an infinity of successive universes, a "spontaneous creation" of everything from nothing for no reason, a black hole...all of these things are more plausible than an Uncaused Cause.

Wrong, you're apparently still not paying attention. The God hypothesis isn't "impossible", but God doesn't get special privileged status on your say so. If rationalists have to deliver a valid story for the origin of the singularity, believers need to do so for "God". Just saying "he's an uncaused cause" is casuistry--in the perjorative sense. Our story is that there's this fairly well-understood phenomenon, but we don't know how it came to be yet. Yours is that there's this mystical force for which there's no concrete evidence whatsoever. But how did it come to be? Ah! See, it didn't! It's always been there.

Puh-leeze.

OK, if that is your faith, I can respect your free will to believe as you will. I just hope you don't decide to form a society based on that premise. Those societies have not worked out so well for the people living in them.

More silliness. As though the long succession of holocausts wrought by irrational societies founded on organized religion is somehow preferable to the handful wrought irrational societies founded on personality cults.

So then you are not an atheist?

Oops...hit "submit" instead of "preview."

So you are not an atheist?

But you do believe Wikipedia is infallible?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It gets amusing to watch nonbelievers state that ANY alternative hypothesis of creation MUST be more plausible than God, because God is impossible. So an infinity of successive universes, a "spontaneous creation" of everything from nothing for no reason, a black hole...all of these things are more plausible than an Uncaused Cause.

I don't think anyone has said that God is impossible. I think the PPs here would just say God is unlikely.

Then no one is an atheist.

Only people who look at the preponderance of evidence and choose to have faith in some other explanation for our existence besides God.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Now now, no need to get all snippy! Evidence in scientific language usually means something you can measure or prove. You can't measure love or prove it exists. We just know it because it is an "evidentiary experience" - something we know exists because we experience it. I would argue souls are similar. People that believe in souls know they exist because they can feel them the same way you feel love.

Hmm. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say they feel their soul the same way that they feel love. Can you give some examples of people feeling their souls?

As for evidence of love, you can observe that in people's actions, not just because they say so. And you could prove love exists if you had to. Off the top of my head, I can imagine an experiement where one group consists pairs of fathers and daughters (presumed to love one another) and the other consists of pairs of random people who don't know each other. You tell each pair that one of them will be shot. Then you tell one of the people he/she can choose whether s/he is shot or the other person. I'm betting that more of the people in the father daughter pairs choose to have themself shot versus the control group, proving love exists.