Why don't you believe in God?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here...I saw someone finally mentioned the grumpiness of my naturalist/materialist/empiricist/evolutionist/skeptic/atheist DCUM PPs! Whew!

Where's the love? Really...what is it that makes skeptics so cranky?

Because you condescend. You keep positioning god as something that is accessible by reason or a reason-like process, which gives you a greater view into the workings of the universe than a skeptic can ever have. Which drives them batshit crazy because it's not true.

In reality, faith is a belief.
It does not contradict existence, but it can't be proven by existence.
It is not accessible by reason or a reason-like process.
It is perfectly reasonable not to believe in God. There is no logic that proves him.
It gives insight into morality, but it does not give superior information on the universe. This has been proven time and time again. Science gives us superior information into the universe.

The best way to reach out to atheists is to have respect for their skepticism. They are being reasonable. It makes no sense for God to hide and then make heaven dependent on believing in him. Where is the good in that?

No, the good in people is in seeking and doing good. Whether we find it in church or by studying creation, this is a purpose that is clear to many skeptics and believers alike.

Lastly, never subordinate science to any other form of inquiry. If God created the universe, he must be most pleased that people apply energy and intellectual rigor to comprehend, appreciate, and honor it.

And this is why, as a lifelong Christian, I have written as though I am a taunting skeptic.

NEVER would I say God made heaven dependent on believing in Him. I have said the precise opposite, that there are no "accidental" eternities apart from God.

And I have emphasized again and again that there is no conflict between the truths of physics and metaphysics. God is the Author of all Truth, and absolutely, our existence should draw us closer to Him. Theist scientists throughout the world, throughout the centuries, have always known that.

Finally, I can only offer my humble apologies for any lapses in congeniality. (Though I hope PPs realize I am not the only theist around on the thread--several times, opinions have been ascribed to the OP when it was not so.) I value every opinion shared. I have learned a great deal, and will continue to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here, ready to tinker with the definition of this being whose existence we have been debating for some time now.

I must assume many PPs have had some fun tossing straw men around, while others have seriously underscored the difficulty of knowing a concept which is, by definition, beyond our comprehension.

But while God, if He exists, is a mystery by His very nature, our existence is an effect of the Cause, and some aspects of the Cause can be understood through our existence. Physicists and mathematicians observe regularly occurring effects and ascertain knowledge of their causes without observing the causes themselves. Now, God is not a gluon or a quark, which are parts of the physical world. But the properties essential to our understanding of the physical world raise the questions whose answers are God.

Two of those questions are causality and information.

Atheists and theists each have their own issues with causality: things don’t come into existence without a cause, yet there is no explanation for the first cause (who caused God?). A materialist explanation rests on the inescapable assumption that matter and energy came from nothing. This relies on as-yet undiscovered principles of physics. In contrast, the theist notion of causality accounts for the sophistry of an "Uncaused Cause" without violating the laws of physics. Before the Big Bang, there was no physical universe, no space, and no time. The Cause is outside of time and space. There is no difference between what it is and that it is. It exists necessarily. This is God.

A metaphysical concept that encompasses this understanding of God's nature is a mind. Information theory (which pops up in computer science, cosmology, genetics, evolutionary theory...) assumes a separation between an object and its representation, as well as the involvement of someone capable of understanding this relationship. Information needs a sender and a receiver, an encoding/decoding mechanism, and a code to represent something (which is distinct from the symbols of the code itself).

Materialistic processes cannot produce coded information. Everything in the materialist universe represents only itself. Everything we know about information requires a Mind, because there is no known mechanism by which natural processes produce information. That Mind is God.

From here, we can understand more of God's attributes, such as God is One, God is infinite, God is eternal, God is transcendent and immanent, omniscient and omnipotent (it is too late at night for those separate discussions now). But the concepts of causality and information are an excellent beginning, because they demonstrate that God authored science, the material universe, physics, and life. So our increased understanding of the physical world and the forces that govern it can only bring us closer to understanding God. There is no conflict.

So that is why I cannot get excited about evolutionary theory in and of itself. It could well be true. When theories about the material universe are used to prove a negative that is outside the scope of such inquiries, that is irrational.

As a general response to the specific complaints of the day: of course I do not hate Dawkins, and I can understand why other skeptics out there would not want to stand behind his work. The only reason I addressed him specifically was to illustrate the problem of closed minds. If skeptics are truly interested in pursuing the truth, wherever it may lead, they would not fall back on ad hominem attacks, or other logical fallacies.

Again, I am only too glad to admit my limitations. I am just a mom. Though I found the referenced scientific papers fascinating, they present no challenge to faith in God, when God is understood not as the picture in the Sistene Chapel, but the most real thing there is.

My question now is, why is it so important to not believe in God?

I hate to pick on this so soon, but from the science perspective:

1. We don't know what is prior to the big bang. There are lots of ideas, but it may not be nothingness.
2. God as defined as that thing before the universe (if there is such a point) is hard to distinguish from the universe itself. Assuming in classic big bang theory, there was a singularity of infinite density and energy, that exploded forth, your version of God would have to either be the force that released all that, or the thing itself. But that doesn't necessitate a sentient being.
3. Information theory is not what you represent. I think you are describing metaphysics. Information theory is an abstract mathematical concept that really isn't dependent on a sender or receiver at all. Shannon's (inventor of information theory) insight was to study information abstracted from semantics - ie, meaning. Therefore, in information theory, certainly within the field of cosmology, the material universe is the information. In information theory, we don't look at the meaning (semantics), but rather the quantity and whether it is conserved, created, or destroyed. (BTW theists, you want to pull for "conserved". Destroyed breaks causality and therefore God).
4. Therefore, if information is as described in information theory, it refutes the part about "That Mind is God". Sorry, I really didn't mean to do that. But there it is. Maybe the idea survives if you revise what you are thinking about regarding information.
5. But next, I think that even with an everyday understanding of information (semantics), we see it consumed to powerful effect without the presence of a mind. DNA is transcribed by transcription RNA to encode messenger RNA to encode proteins that do useful things. None of this requires a mind to operate. A crystal builds copies of itself by simple inorganic processes. Now you may believe that this took a creator, but you can't conclude that merely from seeing that a nonthinking process consumed information. And if that is tough, it is clear that nature produces information continuously. Wind blowing across the sand encodes ripples. Waves and the tide are the encoding of the moon's gravitational pull on the earth. And so on and so on.

Thus, with God relegated to only causality, your essay leaves us with an image of God no better than the initial energy or force in the universe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here...I saw someone finally mentioned the grumpiness of my naturalist/materialist/empiricist/evolutionist/skeptic/atheist DCUM PPs! Whew!

Where's the love? Really...what is it that makes skeptics so cranky?

Because you condescend. You keep positioning god as something that is accessible by reason or a reason-like process, which gives you a greater view into the workings of the universe than a skeptic can ever have. Which drives them batshit crazy because it's not true.

In reality, faith is a belief.
It does not contradict existence, but it can't be proven by existence.
It is not accessible by reason or a reason-like process.
It is perfectly reasonable not to believe in God. There is no logic that proves him.
It gives insight into morality, but it does not give superior information on the universe. This has been proven time and time again. Science gives us superior information into the universe.

The best way to reach out to atheists is to have respect for their skepticism. They are being reasonable. It makes no sense for God to hide and then make heaven dependent on believing in him. Where is the good in that?

No, the good in people is in seeking and doing good. Whether we find it in church or by studying creation, this is a purpose that is clear to many skeptics and believers alike.

Lastly, never subordinate science to any other form of inquiry. If God created the universe, he must be most pleased that people apply energy and intellectual rigor to comprehend, appreciate, and honor it.

And this is why, as a lifelong Christian, I have written as though I am a taunting skeptic.

NEVER would I say God made heaven dependent on believing in Him. I have said the precise opposite, that there are no "accidental" eternities apart from God.

And I have emphasized again and again that there is no conflict between the truths of physics and metaphysics. God is the Author of all Truth, and absolutely, our existence should draw us closer to Him. Theist scientists throughout the world, throughout the centuries, have always known that.

Finally, I can only offer my humble apologies for any lapses in congeniality. (Though I hope PPs realize I am not the only theist around on the thread--several times, opinions have been ascribed to the OP when it was not so.) I value every opinion shared. I have learned a great deal, and will continue to do so.

I never said that you made heaven dependent on faith. My comments specifically directed at you stopped at the first paragraph. The rest is to speak generally about how theists in general can have respect for skeptics. And many people are hung up on the Christian notion that salvation is through faith alone. Therefore it is relevant.

And while you say there is no conflict between God and science, you personally evaluate scientific data very acutely through whether it proves or disproves God. Look at your last post. The comment on evolution and also on the scientific papers. Those papers were intended to answer specific questions that you brought up about the extent to which science understands how life first formed. To a person comfortable with the relationship between science and God, this is fascinating. But you are defensive enough about the implications of science that you have to check these theories against your beliefs. I am a Christian and I do not do that. The same goes with evolution. A religious person who is comfortable with science should jump on this as an opportunity to see the unfolding of creation. Cool stuff, not threatening stuff.

And lastly, you show your prejudice again when you ask the question "why is it important not to believe in God?" That does not make sense to a skeptic. Surely they are going to say "why is it important not to believe in the FSM?" And they would be right. You are implying that there is some emotional need that is causing them to choose their disbelief. Otherwise if you are merely stating it as a logical question, the answer is that "If Gods existence is important, then belief or disbelief is always important", ie their disbelief is just as crucial as your belief.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I hate to pick on this so soon, but from the science perspective:

1. We don't know what is prior to the big bang. There are lots of ideas, but it may not be nothingness.
2. God as defined as that thing before the universe (if there is such a point) is hard to distinguish from the universe itself. Assuming in classic big bang theory, there was a singularity of infinite density and energy, that exploded forth, your version of God would have to either be the force that released all that, or the thing itself. But that doesn't necessitate a sentient being.
3. Information theory is not what you represent. I think you are describing metaphysics. Information theory is an abstract mathematical concept that really isn't dependent on a sender or receiver at all. Shannon's (inventor of information theory) insight was to study information abstracted from semantics - ie, meaning. Therefore, in information theory, certainly within the field of cosmology, the material universe is the information. In information theory, we don't look at the meaning (semantics), but rather the quantity and whether it is conserved, created, or destroyed. (BTW theists, you want to pull for "conserved". Destroyed breaks causality and therefore God).
4. Therefore, if information is as described in information theory, it refutes the part about "That Mind is God". Sorry, I really didn't mean to do that. But there it is. Maybe the idea survives if you revise what you are thinking about regarding information.
5. But next, I think that even with an everyday understanding of information (semantics), we see it consumed to powerful effect without the presence of a mind. DNA is transcribed by transcription RNA to encode messenger RNA to encode proteins that do useful things. None of this requires a mind to operate. A crystal builds copies of itself by simple inorganic processes. Now you may believe that this took a creator, but you can't conclude that merely from seeing that a nonthinking process consumed information. And if that is tough, it is clear that nature produces information continuously. Wind blowing across the sand encodes ripples. Waves and the tide are the encoding of the moon's gravitational pull on the earth. And so on and so on.

Thus, with God relegated to only causality, your essay leaves us with an image of God no better than the initial energy or force in the universe.

OP, back again, but only for a moment, because--wait, PPs have shown frustration when I reference my family, so forget it!

Your point on causality is not quite right. It still references concepts such as time, force, energy, density. Those things are not God. God caused those things. The universe is contingent; the Cause of the universe is not. God is "I am that I am." More prosaically, "God is the fullness of Being and of every perfection, without origin and without end. All creatures receive all that they are and have from him; but he alone is his very being, and he is of himself everything that he is."

As for information theory, Shannon is not alone Best I can tell, information theory is a noisy arena these days. Mind-blowing stuff. I haven't read it yet, but Information and the Nature of Reality: from Physics to Metaphysics recently caught my eye, and I have stumbled across Gitt's theories, when reading about DNA. The little that I have read goes waaay beyond your comments, and anything I could reproduce here. Simply, I will never stay on top of an extended discussion of these areas, because I am no expert, but what do you think of the example below? Is there a materialist response?:

"One mystery is how one virus has DNA which codes for more proteins than it has space to store the necessary coded information.

'The mystery arose when scientists counted the number of three-letter codons in the DNA of the virus, QX174. They found that the proteins produced by the virus required many more code words than the DNA in the chromosome contains. How could this be? Careful research revealed the amazing answer. A portion of a chain of code letters in the gene, say -A-C-T-G-T-C-C-A-G-, could contain three three-letter genetic words as follows: -A-C-T*G-T-C*C-A-G-. But if the reading frame is shifted to the right one or two letters, two other genetic words are found in the middle of this portion, as follows: -A*C-T-G*T-C-C*A-G- and -A-C*T-G-T*C-C-A*G-. And this is just what the virus does. A string of 390 code letters in its DNA is read in two different reading frames to get two different proteins from the same portion of DNA. Could this have happened by chance? Try to compose an English sentence of 390 letters from which you can get another good sentence by shifting the framing of the words one letter to the right. It simply can’t be done. The probability of getting sense is effectively zero.’"

[Anonymous]

Well, I just want to say, omg, butt tickle.

[Anonymous]

4. Therefore, if information is as described in information theory, it refutes the part about "That Mind is God". Sorry, I really didn't mean to do that. But there it is. Maybe the idea survives if you revise what you are thinking about regarding information.
5. But next, I think that even with an everyday understanding of information (semantics), we see it consumed to powerful effect without the presence of a mind. DNA is transcribed by transcription RNA to encode messenger RNA to encode proteins that do useful things. None of this requires a mind to operate. A crystal builds copies of itself by simple inorganic processes. Now you may believe that this took a creator, but you can't conclude that merely from seeing that a nonthinking process consumed information. And if that is tough, it is clear that nature produces information continuously. Wind blowing across the sand encodes ripples. Waves and the tide are the encoding of the moon's gravitational pull on the earth. And so on and so on.

This is a crucial distinction. You are confusing patterns and code.

Patterns (snowflakes, crystals, hurricanes, tornados, rivers, coastlines) occur in nature.

A code is “A system of signals used to represent letters or numbers in transmitting messages.” Examples of code include computer languages, English, Chinese, music, the base ten numbers system, and radio signals. Codes always involve a system of symbols that represent ideas or plans.

All codes contain patterns, but not all patterns contain codes. Naturally occurring patterns do not contain code.

Do you see the distinction?

[Anonymous]

Here's a pretty good summary of why I reject the "God hypothesis" (note I don't say, "I don't believe in God", because, frankly, OP and others haven't offered anything to "not believe in". "His ways are mysterious; we can't know him directly; yadda yadda yadda"):

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here, ready to tinker with the definition of this being whose existence we have been debating for some time now.

I must assume many PPs have had some fun tossing straw men around, while others have seriously underscored the difficulty of knowing a concept which is, by definition, beyond our comprehension.

But while God, if He exists, is a mystery by His very nature, our existence is an effect of the Cause, and some aspects of the Cause can be understood through our existence. Physicists and mathematicians observe regularly occurring effects and ascertain knowledge of their causes without observing the causes themselves. Now, God is not a gluon or a quark, which are parts of the physical world. But the properties essential to our understanding of the physical world raise the questions whose answers are God.

Two of those questions are causality and information.

Atheists and theists each have their own issues with causality: things don’t come into existence without a cause, yet there is no explanation for the first cause (who caused God?). A materialist explanation rests on the inescapable assumption that matter and energy came from nothing. This relies on as-yet undiscovered principles of physics. In contrast, the theist notion of causality accounts for the sophistry of an "Uncaused Cause" without violating the laws of physics. Before the Big Bang, there was no physical universe, no space, and no time. The Cause is outside of time and space. There is no difference between what it is and that it is. It exists necessarily. This is God.

A metaphysical concept that encompasses this understanding of God's nature is a mind. Information theory (which pops up in computer science, cosmology, genetics, evolutionary theory...) assumes a separation between an object and its representation, as well as the involvement of someone capable of understanding this relationship. Information needs a sender and a receiver, an encoding/decoding mechanism, and a code to represent something (which is distinct from the symbols of the code itself).

Materialistic processes cannot produce coded information. Everything in the materialist universe represents only itself. Everything we know about information requires a Mind, because there is no known mechanism by which natural processes produce information. That Mind is God.

From here, we can understand more of God's attributes, such as God is One, God is infinite, God is eternal, God is transcendent and immanent, omniscient and omnipotent (it is too late at night for those separate discussions now). But the concepts of causality and information are an excellent beginning, because they demonstrate that God authored science, the material universe, physics, and life. So our increased understanding of the physical world and the forces that govern it can only bring us closer to understanding God. There is no conflict.

So that is why I cannot get excited about evolutionary theory in and of itself. It could well be true. When theories about the material universe are used to prove a negative that is outside the scope of such inquiries, that is irrational.

As a general response to the specific complaints of the day: of course I do not hate Dawkins, and I can understand why other skeptics out there would not want to stand behind his work. The only reason I addressed him specifically was to illustrate the problem of closed minds. If skeptics are truly interested in pursuing the truth, wherever it may lead, they would not fall back on ad hominem attacks, or other logical fallacies.

Again, I am only too glad to admit my limitations. I am just a mom. Though I found the referenced scientific papers fascinating, they present no challenge to faith in God, when God is understood not as the picture in the Sistene Chapel, but the most real thing there is.

My question now is, why is it so important to not believe in God?

I hate to pick on this so soon, but from the science perspective:

1. We don't know what is prior to the big bang. There are lots of ideas, but it may not be nothingness.
2. God as defined as that thing before the universe (if there is such a point) is hard to distinguish from the universe itself. Assuming in classic big bang theory, there was a singularity of infinite density and energy, that exploded forth, your version of God would have to either be the force that released all that, or the thing itself. But that doesn't necessitate a sentient being.
3. Information theory is not what you represent. I think you are describing metaphysics. Information theory is an abstract mathematical concept that really isn't dependent on a sender or receiver at all. Shannon's (inventor of information theory) insight was to study information abstracted from semantics - ie, meaning. Therefore, in information theory, certainly within the field of cosmology, the material universe is the information. In information theory, we don't look at the meaning (semantics), but rather the quantity and whether it is conserved, created, or destroyed. (BTW theists, you want to pull for "conserved". Destroyed breaks causality and therefore God).
4. Therefore, if information is as described in information theory, it refutes the part about "That Mind is God". Sorry, I really didn't mean to do that. But there it is. Maybe the idea survives if you revise what you are thinking about regarding information.
5. But next, I think that even with an everyday understanding of information (semantics), we see it consumed to powerful effect without the presence of a mind. DNA is transcribed by transcription RNA to encode messenger RNA to encode proteins that do useful things. None of this requires a mind to operate. A crystal builds copies of itself by simple inorganic processes. Now you may believe that this took a creator, but you can't conclude that merely from seeing that a nonthinking process consumed information. And if that is tough, it is clear that nature produces information continuously. Wind blowing across the sand encodes ripples. Waves and the tide are the encoding of the moon's gravitational pull on the earth. And so on and so on.

Thus, with God relegated to only causality, your essay leaves us with an image of God no better than the initial energy or force in the universe.

OP, please read this about 100 times. My guess is that you won't even attempt to address these problems. Which is the reason the non-theists on the thread accuse you of not arguing in good faith.

[Anonymous]

OP here. I found a summary of the ideas of causality and information that is much simpler than my post last night.

There are three fundamental entities: matter, energy, and information. God is the cause of these entities, but He is not these entities. He is reflected in His creation, but He is not Himself His creation.

[Anonymous]

Also, if you want an example of why folks accuse you of not arguing in good faith, this serves pretty well:

Your point on causality is not quite right. It still references concepts such as time, force, energy, density. Those things are not God. God caused those things. The universe is contingent; the Cause of the universe is not. God is "I am that I am." More prosaically, "God is the fullness of Being and of every perfection, without origin and without end. All creatures receive all that they are and have from him; but he alone is his very being, and he is of himself everything that he is."

God's the "causer", so he doesn't need a cause. Why? Because he's the cause. How do we know this? He says so in the Bible!

Again, I know I'm going to be accused of being grumpy, but your line of argument is frankly insulting to the average adult's intelligence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's a pretty good summary of why I reject the "God hypothesis" (note I don't say, "I don't believe in God", because, frankly, OP and others haven't offered anything to "not believe in". "His ways are mysterious; we can't know him directly; yadda yadda yadda"):

Feynman's critique knocks it out of the park (as usual): "Too simple, too connected. Too provincial."

Dead on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a pretty good summary of why I reject the "God hypothesis" (note I don't say, "I don't believe in God", because, frankly, OP and others haven't offered anything to "not believe in". "His ways are mysterious; we can't know him directly; yadda yadda yadda"):

** video snipped **

Feynman's critique knocks it out of the park (as usual): "Too simple, too connected. Too provincial."

Dead on.

Not only that, but about a thousand times more amazing and stirring than jesus-talk.

[Anonymous]

The designer is more complicated than the thing being designed. As long as that's the case, it has no exploratory value. It's an infinite regress.

And, OP, just saying that it's not--or God forbid, quoting the Christian God of the Bible as evidence--is insulting.

[Anonymous]

OP, please read this about 100 times. My guess is that you won't even attempt to address these problems. Which is the reason the non-theists on the thread accuse you of not arguing in good faith.

There are no problems. PP misunderstood both causality and information.

These concepts are both mind-blowing and easily understood. Like the God they describe.

What is awesome about these ideas is the way they fit together. Humans could never create matter or energy. But we create information constantly. Information begins with a desire, which leads to an idea, the idea is expressed in words, which themselves are a code made of symbols. Information comes from a mind. God is a Mind, a Designer.

So we can understand the nature of God through His creation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The designer is more complicated than the thing being designed. As long as that's the case, it has no exploratory value. It's an infinite regress.

And, OP, just saying that it's not--or God forbid, quoting the Christian God of the Bible as evidence--is insulting.

I was not quoting the Bible as evidence. "I Am that I Am" is an illustration of the concept of Absolute Being. I couldn't say it any better