Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I suppose one way would be to quote some other theistic work like the Qur'an or the Guru Granth Sahib or the Avesta. I have a hunch that's not what you're meaning.
There are mathematicians who have tried this. There is a Bayesian argument on the probability of God that apparently was made by Stephen Unwin. Although the equation included some speculation as does the Drake Equation. Unwin used it and got a 67% probability for God, skeptic Michael Shermer got 2% when he used it, and Dawkins was skeptical of the whole idea. (I might be too, but I'm not sure)
Kurt Godel had his own ontological proof. There was also a group of Russian mystics called the Imiaslavie or "Name Worshippers" who were significant to the "Russian school" of mathematics. Their work concerned functions and transfinite. I bought a book by a Harvard fellow on them and they sound intriguing. Anyway the transfinite numbers have some appeal to mystics in that they concern things that are beyond nature, as in there is nothing in nature that is transfinite, but are accepted as mathematically real.
Then there are arguments concerning the observer principle and the creation of the Universe. So far the Universe just "is" or it's part of some greater multi-dimensional space that can not yet, or maybe ever, be verified by experiment. Also on a Quantum level reality seems to involve observers collapsing probability waves. (This involves things like Quantum entanglement, Schrodinger's Cat, and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox) So either "we", meaning conscious beings of any kind, are the center of the Universe who collapse probability waves into material reality or there is some "ultimate observer" who "watches over our shoulder" to collapse the probabilities when "we" collapse them. This would give Quantum reality one ultimate source rather than having it be "the reality of whatever being measures the thing." (Problem here is it might seem a bit weird or unnecessary for God to play "peekaboo" with the Universe, but I believe the physics require that it at least appear to be the measurer who is collapsing the wave. Also it might seem to be adding an unnecessary element to have a "hidden measurer", but many find the alternative unpalatable) This probably sounds rather goofball, but QM is something I'm only self-taught in and I'm not sure I can give a full explanation of what I'm trying to say in it.
I'd say this is the argument that comes down to Einstein - not his physics, but his view of 'god'. Einstein believed in a sort of controlling and even planning intelligence but not in a personal god. When living physicists say 'I want to know the mind of god', that's what they mean as well. They want to understand the way the universe works and, as you say, there are intriguing indications of a possible planning process behind it.
It does not mean they are going to trundle the wheelchair down to the local chapel for a couple of choruses of 'Come all ye faithful'.
There was a thread on pantheism. It should be clear that atheists are pretty tolerant towards the idea of Einstein - type god, though logically, the evidence for it is not yet in the credibility area. The focal point is that it is interesting, even very interesting, bu it is nowhere near being believed in, that is having a personal conviction about.
And that is a long, long way from arguing that It was a 'god' that took time off from knitting quantum strings to tell Caiaphas that he really did need to put that pesky Jew to death, though only telling the reason why to St. John.
The bible is not a credible source but it is to the Christians who literally believe it. You are right there are lots of sources to look at. There are lots of archeological sources to look at. I have been watching this show on the history network called "The Naked Archeologist" and no he isn't naked....lol But its really interesting.
He recently did shows on Masada, Joshua, The Temple mount, and the Dead sea scrolls.
I have also watched his show, he is Jewish, yet try to find a link for several religions. My issue is his starting points always seem to start with the unproven assumption that there was a jesus, or a garden of Eden. I like the pure archeology based on provable history, but find the myth based archeology to be a waste of time.
People break down into two groups when the experience something lucky. Group number one sees it as more than luck, more than coincidence. They see it as a sign, evidence, that there is someone up there, watching out for them. Group number two sees it as just pure luck. Just a happy turn of chance. - Signs
People break down into two groups when the experience something lucky. Group number one sees it as more than luck, more than coincidence. They see it as a sign, evidence, that there is someone up there, watching out for them. Group number two sees it as just pure luck. Just a happy turn of chance. - Signs
So, who is right? The response 'well, whatever you want to believe - one belief is as good as another' plays into the hands of the believer in the unproven. The way it does that is to assume that there is no evidence either way.
In fact, it is not that hard to set up some kinds of test to show that apparent statistical evidence for 'more than coincidence' is more down to misperceptions on the part of the observer.
However, even if 'something more than luck' were to show up in the statistics, to jump to the conclusion that 'someone' up there is watching out for them, that is a leap of faith that there is something that is giving them breaks ..ok, two leaps of faith..it is a 'someone' not a 'something', and that usually admits another leap of faith, or rather, Faith, that it is a particular Someone(1) and all the other peoples' 'someones' are not for real.
But, of course, accuracy requires that I say that even this sequence of un-logic is not how the reasoning process works. It is the other way around. the leap of faith is the starting point and then the statistical misperception is mispercieved as supposed evidence for the 'someone' in which the misperciever already believes.
It is called 'This is the conclusion - what facts can we find to support it'. First coined in connection with Creationism, it is, in fact the seat, basis and rationale of all theist thought since the first priests persuaded the first suckers to hand over free food because the Sky - father or whatever would be pleased if they did.
(1) or the emissaries of that Someone. Or possibly of His long -term enemy, whatever you need to fit what you want to believe.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-02-2009 at 04:15 AM..
I am not a Christian either and do not hold the bible in any regard. I know this is going off on a tangent, but after a recent trip to NoVA to see my parents there was a lot of pressue to "get in the church" and "make God number one if your life." I'm fine with the fact that my family chooses to believe, but I am having a hard time wrapping my head around it all. I am good just to be good. I don't feel I have to immerse myself in a certain belief to attain this. Basically, this recent experience is the root cause of my posting today.
You think it is counter evolutionary? We are self-aware beings and self-aware about our own mortality. I can think of a lot of positive reasons why we would believe in something that provides answers, comfort and a reduced fear of our own demise even if the entire thing was baloney.
True, that is what the evolutionary psychologists would say.
Still, though...there are A LOT of people that honestly believe they are recipients of miraculous help and it isn't culture specific. If there logically wasn't any other "higher" power at play then it shouldn't happen so much, and those who seek it should not succeed often enought to keep the myth alive. I think more is going on than just chance and placebo effect.
Likewise, what beneficial triat would have come about when it first entered the heads of our distant ancestors? Religion seems like it would be more a hinderance than a boon.
Or on the flip side, does the gaining of sentience actually give us an afterlife and or/effect the living in ways we do not yet understand? Could conciousness exist across muliple planes; dying here but still remaining elswhere in space-time?
I don't know, but I'm not ready to simply write off a key piece of human nature as just a fluke. There is still A LOT to be learned about the nature of the universe and we are only just barely scratching the surface.
True, that is what the evolutionary psychologists would say.
Still, though...there are A LOT of people that honestly believe they are recipients of miraculous help and it isn't culture specific. If there logically wasn't any other "higher" power at play then it shouldn't happen so much, and those who seek it should not succeed often enought to keep the myth alive. I think more is going on than just chance and placebo effect.
Likewise, what beneficial triat would have come about when it first entered the heads of our distant ancestors? Religion seems like it would be more a hinderance than a boon.
Or on the flip side, does the gaining of sentience actually give us an afterlife and or/effect the living in ways we do not yet understand? Could conciousness exist across muliple planes; dying here but still remaining elswhere in space-time?
I don't know, but I'm not ready to simply write off a key piece of human nature as just a fluke. There is still A LOT to be learned about the nature of the universe and we are only just barely scratching the surface.
As far as "miracles"- most of the world honestly believed the earth was the center of the universe. Additionally, "miracles" appear just as random for believers as unnecessary tragedies for believers. Religon has been a hinderance to a large extent in terms of limiting the search of how the universe works, etc. How did religon arise? Looking at the history or religon, it would appear that it was first used to explain natural events that humans did not understand. With regard to the "afterlife"- primitive people didn't understand that conciousness exists in our physical brains. We now KNOW what happens when we die- our brains stop functioning.
Something about that display on the bus seems a little off. I feel like it's cleverly trying to say In the beginning man created God as opposed to the other way around God created man. But the original verse never said that in the beginning God created man, it said in the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth.
Every so often, I turn on the History Channel to find a program about a powerful leader trying to erase the past and re-write history. Queen Elizabeth. Henry the 8th. Chairman Mao. Hitler. To name only a few. How many times has this happened in the history of man and how much history, with religion along for the ride, has been re-written or purposefully left out of the story? Has this effected the Bible we now read? How much of the Pagan world (from the symbol of the cross to the seasons and more) was demonized and / or adopted as Christian tradition? How many religions are trying to claim their version of God / Yahweh / Allah / Supreme Being is the one?
This has been spun and spun so long and so much that a beginning and an end are not discernable. We may only know when our time comes and we meet our maker...or not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Can't prove a darn thing
