This is answered in the same way I answered about morality.
And, I upgraded your membership.
1 Like
That is not a logical conclusion. The concept of a sentient creator agency creates the need for an irreducible object, which has been debunked in the Kitzmiller trial.
A stochastic Logical agency such as mathematical function has in itself no complexity. It needs only be logical, not necessarily sentient.
And that makes a sentient Agent a priori superfluous . I have no objection to the concept of an abstract creative process. I object to the assignment of sentience and motive to this agency. That concept brings a ton of unexplainable baggage for which no answers can be provided.
Moreover, assigning undefinable properties to this Agency creates all kinds of paradoxical equations
You cannot definitively declare that something exists without offering any proof of its existence.
You even concede that the Bible is not a scientifically reliable instrument.
What then is left of the argument that God MUST exist?
Note, I am not dismissing the Bible as having both beneficial and detrimental phychological values. It does, but that cannot be used as a scientific argument.
All Biblical sins and virtues can be attributed to a logical secular value system as well.
The difference in this topic is that I’m trying to avoid tired old arguments where we ask questions of evidence and proof.
I am more interested in logical conclusions when faced with an unknown and if people are consistent with those conclusions in their lives.
For example I can never claim : I have proof of God’s existence. I instead say: I believe in God.
If we had proof of God we wouldn’t be having this convo.
Also if we had proof of How and Why we exist and that proof shows that a creator isn’t necessary then I would Stop believing in God too.
So in this case of math being the “true reality” I believe that this shows either the work of a creator, the mind of a creator or the creator itself.
So I arrive at this conclusion due to complexity and mystery of this statement about math being the true reality.
Yes, but starting with an irreducible complexity is not logical, regardless how you apply that conclusion.
The same result can be achieved by not starting with an irreducible complexity and the consistent application of secular moral laws as defined by the laws of causality.
Personal sins and virtues are logical secular arguments, applicable regardless of any underlying belief system. They are a result of natural selection of survival strategies.
Ask what extra benefit the assignment of sentience brings to a creative agency?
I see none. Can you?
I would also like to avoid them, BUT, there has to be agreement how we determine what’s true. I already left the door open to whatever philosophical thoughts you want to have, BUT, you can’t ignore physical evidence in the process. Philosophy is what we do AFTER examining evidence. We philosophize about things that we can’t figure are true or not. I think you are saying that something that is very likely false, could be true. You’re right, it could be, but the chances are very small, and there are consequences to thinking something is true when the chances are small.
here’s something to consider, that you can prove a negative
Well this is absolutely logical to me because it’s an unknown.
The benefit that I see would be the implications of knowing for absolutely sure wether an existential question is proved to be true or false backed up by proof. So for me the benefit is that a creator gives meaning and this gives me hope and joy.
But there are others who say there is no creator and they are joyful and hopeful too. That’s great too. But how we arrived at these two points is what’s interesting to me.
I would definitely open my other topic at some point because the consequences of a thought proven to be true, has come up twice now and would also “answer” Lausten’s comments.
I certainly agree that “belief” in something that is considered good and beautiful can be spiritually beneficial. We all stand in awe of the incredible majesty of the universe.
However, there is a darker side to “exclusive” belief systems . They are prejudicial in essence and history has shown that different exclusive belief systems may not always be compatible.
Oh of course and I agree with you but I’m not even there yet. I’m simply at the first step of the journey where people take different paths when faced with an unknown.
The cruel human history full of injustices, prejudices and lies is a whole ‘nother subject altogether.
I’m not sure it is. We can show that prayer works as well as random chance. We can show that religion doesn’t offer anything to ethics that can’t be found outside of religion. We also know that religion lacks oversight. We know the logic of religion contradicts and inhibits learning.
There are scientists that say they are religious, but they say they don’t mix them. The few scientists who claim to apply science to religion can be shown to be wrong. I’m not accusing you eli, of doing anything wrong, but you can’t just dismiss the influence of religion on history and culture.
Try this, if religion could do what it claims, if it could cure disease, bring peace, give us answers to difficult moral dilemmas, then why doesn’t it? We’ve seen what religions do when they are in power, that’s why they have been reformed.
1 Like
Well the reason I don’t want to talk about history yet is because i would like to approach this from a free-thinking internal perspective without the bias of either side. I’ve heard a lot from both sides (believers and non believers) so ultimately this comes down to a Need for a person to have some closure with existential questions.
This is why I’m interested in thought processes and if people live up to their choices.
Because I know what religion has done historically but I don’t let this fact cloud my reasoning when asking Why we exist. These are two separate topics for me because Human history is a well-established fact but human existence is not.
So some people are okay with not knowing and some others are not. Than some others are indoctrinated (all sides) and some don’t even have time to ask.
This is what I find interesting to discuss.
Okay. I think i covered that. So far, I’ve heard you believe because it feels good.
… believes in God because we don’t know the mystery of Why we exist …
I can’t see the connection between the two.
You might as well say, you believe in Harry Potter because we don’t know the mystery of *Dumbledore.
or
you believe in God because you don’t know the mystery of why magnatism attracts.
There are lots of mysteries, many used as reasons for believing in God. For instance, earthquakes prove there is a God because they show how angry he is with us.
Slowly one by one they are being solved. No reason to believe in God but they are a reason to solve the remaining mysteries.
What’s left is the “God of the gaps”.
And the gaps are getting smaller all the time.
Ok so this topic is more about logical conclusions and positions and if people are living up to their ideals and lifestyle.
So if you say “i believe in the Santa clause” then you’re not an atheist.
And if you’re an atheist then you shouldn’t say “this song is beautiful” because “beautiful” is just a chemical reaction in the brain.
So are you living up to all the rigorous line of thinking you expect from others?
Yes and the logical conclusion is, that if you believe in a single God , you reject only one God less than I do.
Yes this is absolutely true and consistent.
Just because beauty is a result of brain activity, that doesn’t mean i can’t say something is beautiful. You have made so many errors in the last few days, now you are starting to change the meaning of words, like “is”.
I get the feeling you just like to argue
1 Like
These are not errors but logical conclusions arising from your definitions of positions.
If you’d like to reduce everything to brain chemicals then a lot of the language that we believers use, should be off-limit to you.
For example I see universal fine tuning and I say “God” yet you’d like me to not say it because you don’t see any material evidence - thus you also need to stay consistent with the material fact that “beautiful” is a chemical reaction.
After a concert one should say “I had a great chemical experience”.
Also Socrates liked to argue all day.
You sir, are not Socrates.
There’s no reason to resort to such reductionism. Chemical or not, we have experiences. I can’t explain everything, so I use the language that we’ve developed. Most people are fine with that. I don’t know why you have a problem with it.
You are the one who has decided it’s a god. So, after dinner, you’d say, that was god, or smelling a flower, mmmm god, breathing, god…