# Is God Real?-Need Expert Advice



## TrueorFalse248 (Dec 16, 2019)

*Hiya!**What if* there is a powerful being out there, you know that guy in space, with magical powers knowing our thoughts? and if I become religious which religion should I join: Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism etc?

*Is God real???*


----------



## Innocentia (Jun 30, 2019)

I'm an atheist, but more so I study anthropology, which allow to get quite a view on a lot of religions and/or what people call spirituality in the modern era.

It's basically either a submission to a political order, or to a set of political orders, for religion. And for spirituality, disconnected, at least partially, from a clear set belief so we feel like having more freedom compared to the more religious people, act like an individual justification of our behaviour.

What is important to keep in mind is that everyone does that, even as an atheist, I'm kinda religious and kinda spiritual, because I defend a certain view of what would be a good societal order, and I have a set of values to help me in my decisions of the behaviour I have to engage in.

You can try to back them up with scientific knowledge, but in the end, science is always progressing, the society too, and we, as individuals, too. So we never quite keep with the time, more so because science cannot do it either.

So, through this point of view, heavely influenced by anthropology, the question would become: Are those religions actual? Or is the spirituality you're willing to embrace actual? In a way, yes, they're practiced, but at the same time, you'll see homophobia being justified by the sacred books. You could argue that it's a bad interpretation, but is it? Who are you to know what is a good interpretation? You better rewrite the book so there're no parts which allows people to interpret it in a way that they're willing to engage in a exclusion of a part of the society. But it doesn't mean you got it right either, you can just create a new parallel religion which will be actual with an expressed will, from a part of the population, to include gay and lesbian, and bi, into the society as equal. It will be nothing more.

This struggle clearly show that those religions are kinda stuck somewhere in the time. Buddhism was created within its own set of social struggle, tried give advice on how to live to fight back those struggle, and there're no gods in this religion, even if some buddhist movement kinda take the bodhidarmma as a god. So you'll see, again, some problem with most of the inclusive political movement of today, buddhism isn't feminist for example, not so much because they're explicitly sexist, but the struggle that women have so they can be heard, isn't discussed at all, and so oppression is kept intact.

This lack of plasticity has never really been a problem before, cause the tradition were oral, and people had hard to not reinterpret them related to the actual struggle. So religion were constantly changing through subversion, now that most people have their religion kinda set in stone while we live in a modern era where the pace is very high when you're willing to deal with social issues, and actually any issue. Gods and Goddesses are kinda dying, they're not able to keep the pace, religion wasn't meant for the modern times, and the modern times aren't made to last very long either, but that's another debate.

If we want to use power words, in the sense of magical words like if we had to cast a spell, I would do, relative to our times, cast this one: "If Gods and Goddesses are real, if there's a spiritual world, metaphysical truths, then I'll gladly deny them any entrance to our world." Now, you may want to keep the door open, and it may feel good for you, but time is kinda running out, and the time you loose to keep the door to a religion and/or to a spirituality, trying to see how they fit in the actual order, most of us will be away. A lot of religious people do go to the church without believing in God, even at medieval times, if this wasn't even more the case than now. Being religious is kinda being blind to the time which never stop going forward, it's to rest.

Now I'm not against rest, but if, in your rest, you learn things which clashes with your way of acting, with some of your belief, this rest is finally not a rest. If you still want to do that, but it's very individualistic, kinda like stoicism, buddhism can be good cause you have to meditate. Meditation allows you to take rest and at the same time, to take a grasp on your emotions, that's good for your health actually, even science isn't denying that. But I wouldn't listen to the teachings, to me, it was boring and laughable to say the least.

If before religion was not only to connect with your self, but with the society you were in, which is too, constructing your self. The very fact that you express the choice of religion like a food menu, means that our society don't rely anymore on religion to build the self. Religion left us, and we left the religions. To have such a distance with religion, is something completely new for the religions themselves, they were never meant to be on a food menu, all their usefulness is dying.

It won't connect you to this society, and your self hasn't been built by one religion but by a far more complex set of ideologies, you better consider all religion and ideologies from afar, as you're not meant for any of those, your origins aren't there, in one religion, your origins are social and many. Consider them before going forward, some time, but then go forward, and when you need some rest, meditate or look at your social origins, then again, continue to go forward, keep discovering, keep giving what you can to others. Don't stuck yourself too much with those questions.

God is real if you were meant to want it, to be real.


----------



## TrueorFalse248 (Dec 16, 2019)

Innocentia said:


> I'm an atheist, but more so I study anthropology, which allow to get quite a view on a lot of religions and/or what people call spirituality in the modern era.
> 
> It's basically either a submission to a political order, or to a set of political orders, for religion. And for spirituality, disconnected, at least partially, from a clear set belief so we feel like having more freedom compared to the more religious people, act like an individual justification of our behaviour.
> 
> ...


*Whoa!* that's quite intense and high in detail. *anyways love ya. I think I'll stay agnostic.* There's more to be discovered with the launch of the new *James Webb Space Telescope in upcoming 2021*.


----------



## Convex (Jan 5, 2015)

Innocentia said:


> I'm an atheist, but more so I study anthropology, which allow to get quite a view on a lot of religions and/or what people call spirituality in the modern era.
> 
> It's basically either a submission to a political order, or to a set of political orders, for religion. And for spirituality, disconnected, at least partially, from a clear set belief so we feel like having more freedom compared to the more religious people, act like an individual justification of our behaviour.
> 
> ...


What a load of word salad bullshit, you explaining why religion is and came to be is nothing more important than religion explaining why someone like you exists and came to be


----------



## integra (Nov 7, 2019)

god exists, it is not what you conceptualise it to be.
he? she?
how can one assign gender to god? to make it communicable to humans we might assign it a gender but the construct as it exists in reality is agender, and perhaps even beyond that concept entirely.
does god care what you do with your life? yes and no, it is both at once.
does god know what you will do? always
can you anger god? never
is any action you perform in conflict with god? no, both the left and right operate to the will of god.
lucifer only falls at the behest of god's will. you get it?

i mean shit the best way to explain this shit is via the force from star wars tbh.
the force is both the light and dark side, it is the will of the galaxy, it's two halves are constants as they are it's whole self.
nothing occurs in star wars that is not according to the will of the force on either side.
the sith operate to the will of self, the jedi operate to the will of the collective.
the self is required to shape the collective, the collective is required to regulate the self.
all are dictated to by the force.
one does not become a sith by choice, they were preordained to become a sith in an attempt to escape their own determinism.
one does not become a jedi by choice, they were preordained to become a jedi in an attempt to accelerate their own determinism.
the force does not care for either, the force is only concerned with finding balance in time, whatever that is, and so uses the light and dark side practitioners as tools to that end.

same thing happens here.
god makes people love, god makes people hate, everyone has a script to play out and even rejecting said script is a part of the script.
is it malicious? unlikely, one wouldn't have capacity for mysticism then.
what is the higher purpose? no one would agree on it anyway so best to keep going and find it by virtue of our design, every piece matters in the design of anything afterall, nothing is superfluous.
can the dark side be accepted in full? unlikely, but it shall remain a constant as the collective requires regular testing by the will of the self.
and so we go, on and on.

as for what religion to join, well, no one has the full picture, everyone only has pieces of it.


----------



## Folsom (Jun 20, 2018)

Someone must either provide logical or scientific proof for the existence of God for any reasonable person to begin believing in it/her/him.

Scientific proof cannot be provided for something supernatural. No known metric allows us to investigate the supernatural.
Some people might say that it's ignorant to remain so invested in the scientific method, that it's not very open minded, yadda yadda. 
Ask these people, 'If not science, then what?'

There is no better tool for understanding the nature of the Universe, regardless of how much these people pretend there is.

Logical proofs are usually quite easy to see the flaws in.

The most important thing is to recognise what people can and cannot know and that you do not have to prove them wrong, they have to prove that they are right. 
It is their burden of proof to provide evidence for their beliefs.

The null hypothesis is that X does not exist. The claim is that X does exist, therefore the claimant must provide evidence that X exists.

They might try to fight you on this and claim that it isn't their burden of proof, but then they are setting a precedent for hundreds of other faulty beliefs to be on equal footing with the existence of God.

Also, bear in mind that the most reasonable Atheistic position is 'Weak Atheism'. This does not say that God definitely does not exist, but that God has not been proven to exist by Theists and as such we do not believe that the assertion that God exists is true.

I do not believe that God exists =/= I believe that God does not exist.

People will make a lot of claims about God, but will rarely (I have never seen it so I'm being generous) give reasonable explanations for why they believe those claims to be true when you ask them.
'Why' is the worst question you can ask a Theist because it reveals the faultiness of their assertions.

Keep your standard of evidence reasonably high and your logical reasoning sound. You'll have your answer in no time.


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

Depends on what you mean by "real".


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

TrueorFalse248 said:


> *Hiya!**What if* there is a powerful being out there, you know that guy in space, with magical powers knowing our thoughts? and if I become religious which religion should I join: Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism etc?
> 
> *Is God real???*


That sounds kind of like some theories on extraterrestrials. : / And I don't think anyone knows if they exist, and certainly not whether they are telepathic.

But as for your spiritual desire. If you feel like you need to learn about spirituality I would suggest you begin reading about the major religions, unless you know that there is one religious/spiritual belief that seems most interesting and good to you, then just start there.

Depends on what you need religion for.

How am I supposed to know if God is real. I do believe that sometimes believing in God/Goddess can be psychologically helpful. I'm not interested in proving other people's gods/goddesses don't exist or forcing them to believe in one.


----------



## Innocentia (Jun 30, 2019)

Convex said:


> What a load of word salad bullshit, you explaining why religion is and came to be is nothing more important than religion explaining why someone like you exists and came to be


I don't know how you see _existence_ and _being_, if it's on the level of metaphysical truth like for most of religions and/or any essentialist view, but if it's on a constructivist view, so the view we have on existence is actually a social construction, yeah you sum it up pretty well. Religion is just like any speech which has the goal, directly or indirectly, to justify how things seems to be by actually creating a set of idea allowing us to see like they say it is. And introducing a logic or more which link those created perceptions of the world further down the road, we feel like our perceptions of the world are actually intentional, an intention above humanity. It feels like there has to be a logic behind all this, which can't be proven and will never be, but actually there're intentions, but human ones, or to be more precise, social ones.

So in conclusion, religions and ideologies and any speech on the world, is a social construction with a social intention embedded in it which is above you as an individual, but not above us as a society. But generalisation coming from our intuitions and feelings, and the generalisations being the rationalisation of them, are so common in the life of an individual, that it's no wonder that we want to see like it's more than just a individual thing or a social one. So it has to be a divine or a spiritual thing, an universal truth, but again you won't be able to prove it, that's what is universal objectivity, a speech which speak to your intuition. We build objectivity, universality, intuition and feelings, none of them are given, they're all social constructions. That's the constructivist point of view.

And then we should talk about the materialist point of view, because a pure constructivist view has its bias too. But for another time.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Folsom said:


> Someone must either provide logical or scientific proof for the existence of God for any reasonable person to begin believing in it/her/him.
> 
> Scientific proof cannot be provided for something supernatural. No known metric allows us to investigate the supernatural.
> Some people might say that it's ignorant to remain so invested in the scientific method, that it's not very open minded, yadda yadda.
> ...


Technically that's a claim that you can't back up with either of those things.

I mean, you admit to making a category error but then try to justify it with "fuck it, it's the best we have." which doesn't seem very reasonable at all. But I think we can just point out the contradictions in naturalism as proof. As well as the unproven things that it asserts.

Can you tell me how scientific understanding gets around solipsism?

Is this a conclusion you came to logically.....?

Well you've made a bunch of claims that you haven't backed up and don't you think it's much easier to sit there and judge other peoples arguments and write them off cause you're personally unconvinced then it is to come up with your own? The former doesn't seem like an honest way to have a conversation.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Also what if we have no proof either way? Abiogenesis is true but also not true? Btw it's very easy to phrase a positive as a negative and vice-versa so....

The burden of proof literally just means you have to give reasons why you believe something to be true, it doesn't have to convince the other person, that would just be silly.

That's a claim and again, you being unconvinced isn't the metric for something not being proof. I'm confused, do you believe there isn't a God, or are you just on the fence?

Again with this point, also the problem with that is from what I've seen of atheists they will insist it's not God but will entertain any other theory, no matter how lacking in proof. I've also seen atheists rule out God for being "irrational" but then when I ask them what a reasonable explanation would look like they can't tell me.


----------



## Folsom (Jun 20, 2018)

Aluminum Frost said:


> Technically that's a claim that you can't back up with either of those things.
> 
> I mean, you admit to making a category error but then try to justify it with "fuck it, it's the best we have." which doesn't seem very reasonable at all. But I think we can just point out the contradictions in naturalism as proof. As well as the unproven things that it asserts.
> 
> ...


The answer "We don't know." Is perfectly fine. Solipsism? We dont know. It's a known problem. Science doesn't claim to even be able to understand everything. It can't investigate the supernatural for instance, but if someone isn't going to use scientific evidence to prove that God exists then they need to use some other system and justify why that system works.

If Science isn't the best we have then what is, and if there isn't anything else that you can point to as being better then why would you believe anything else? 
It isn't a category error to claim that one way of investigating the world provides consistently better results and gets more right than any other method. It is only a category error if someone is claiming to believe in a God which doesn't interact with physical reality at all. If God interacts with physical reality then those actions fall under the purview of scientific investigation. It is not the fault of science if those interactions with reality happened 2000 years ago, were not subjected to testing at the time and were only recorded by people hearing eye witness statements a generation after the fact, for example.

You write off other people's arguments if they are making unsubstantiated claims as though they were substantiated. I have made my claims about religion and God, the answer that I have come to is that I don't know if God exists and I am very interested to see how those who do believe he/she/it exists have come to that conclusion. This isn't me just writing off their claims and not coming up with my own. 

I have my own claims and I can substantiate them by pointing out the flaws in every other view. 
I don't deal in absolutes, it is just a question 
of what is the most reasonable position to hold.

The view 'We dont know.' can only be substantiated by pointing out flaws in supposed explanations.

When it comes to convincing the other person I was speaking in terms of OP going and having conversations. These people need to meet his burden of proof to convince him.

We don't need to give 'reasonable' explanations in order to show that another explanation is unreasonable. We just need to show that the argument is unreasonable even if we dont replace it with our own explanation.

You saw Bigfoot flying around the sun on a Unicorn through your telescope? 
Even though we know that Unicorns and big foot haven't been proven to exist?

There might be more reasonable explanations that I can point to, you can probably think of some, but if I dont point to them does that mean that my reasons for why your explanation is unreasonable are null and void?

Notice that you have tried to shoot down my reasons for why I believe what I believe and haven't yet replaced it with why you believe what you believe. Does this mean that you are taking the easy road like you have accused me of doing? Or is this just how these kinds of conversations work? I make a claim, you argue against the claim, I defend the claim or admit that I am wrong, then ask you to make a claim, etc. ? 

It is easy to phrase a positive as a negative, that's why the concept of a null hypothesis exists, isn't it?

I can logically back up everything I have said above I just have to know the arguments that are being presented against what I have said before I do.


----------



## Blazkovitz (Mar 16, 2014)

Decide for yourself, whose arguments are more convincing:

https://markhumphrys.com/atheism.arguments.html
https://www.conservapedia.com/Arguments_for_the_existence_of_God

Personally at 34 I still find it difficult to decide whether I should believe in God or not. If there is a God, I don't thing he is a specific human-centred deity like Jesus, Allah, Odin or Zeus. I find it way easier to believe in a Cosmic Mind, who started the Universe but doesn't care about individual beings.

Finally, disbelieving in a personal God shouldn't lead you to reject Christian morality. I like the following upshot by Konstantin Tsiolkovsky (the first man to design a spaceship):

_There is no omnipotent God, but there is the Universe, which governs the fates of all celestial bodies and their inhabitants. There are no sons of God, but there are mature and thus rational and perfect sons of the Cosmos. There is no Christ, but there is a brilliant man and a greater teacher of mankind._


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Folsom said:


> The answer "We don't know." Is perfectly fine. Solipsism? We dont know. It's a known problem. Science doesn't claim to even be able to understand everything. It can't investigate the supernatural for instance, but if someone isn't going to use scientific evidence to prove that God exists then they need to use some other system and justify why that system works.
> 
> If Science isn't the best we have then what is, and if there isn't anything else that you can point to as being better then why would you believe anything else?
> It isn't a category error to claim that one way of investigating the world provides consistently better results and gets more right than any other method. It is only a category error if someone is claiming to believe in a God which doesn't interact with physical reality at all. If God interacts with physical reality then those actions fall under the purview of scientific investigation. It is not the fault of science if those interactions with reality happened 2000 years ago, were not subjected to testing at the time and were only recorded by people hearing eye witness statements a generation after the fact, for example.
> ...


That's a non-answer, and you can't make assertions and then say "we don't know" Logic and reason is a better system. Are you familiar with what solipsism is?

X is the best method we have isn't a good argument for X being true or even reliable. How is that true if there's a good chance that we may just be in a simulation or something like that? If we are then everything we know about science is worthless. There's no way to know we're not and no reason to think what we experience is real. Not really, miracles tend to be unfalsifiable so people just assume they're untrue. Most conceptions of God is that he is timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. So yes, it's a category error.

It kind of is though, you seem to be arguing more against a God here due to the supposed lack of evidence. Well then what would you think the explanation is? What would a reasonable explanation look like? Cause I'm not seeing what metric you're using to gauge what constitutes as rational or irrational.

That's not really how the burden of proof works though, it's not a subjective thing. I think I see what you're saying but to say someone hasn't been convinced by what you say therefore you haven't met your burden of proof is incorrect (assuming that's what you're saying).

That's true if you have a rubric for what is and isn't irrational, but we don't when it comes to how we got here so it has no leg to stand on in this instance.

I'm confused as to how you're defining proof here. What's the difference between if you just saw it as opposed to everyone seeing it?

Yes, because they're one in the same.

No, I have my reasons, I just haven't mentioned them to you yet.

I don't think you're understanding here. The null hypothesis could be life can only come from life is false, it could also be life can't come from non-life. One of these has to be true but they would both be the null hypothesis. I think absence of evidence is not evidence of absence works better.

Didn't you previously argue that logical reasoning is flawed?


----------



## Folsom (Jun 20, 2018)

Aluminum Frost said:


> That's a non-answer, and you can't make assertions and then say "we don't know" Logic and reason is a better system. Are you familiar with what solipsism is?


I can absolutely say that it is unreasonable to believe that you saw Big Foot flying on a Unicorn through the telescope, but that I don't know what you did see.
If you are making the claim that X is real then you have to provide evidence for X.
If I say that your evidence for why X is real is faulty I do not then have to say that Y is real instead for my reasons for why your evidence is faulty to have any credibility.


Think about it in terms of a court of law. When the prosecution makes their argument for why the defendant is guilty and then the defence argues against the prosecutions claims, does the defence also HAVE to provide a different course of events in order for their refutations to be considered?


Of course not. I'm not sure where you have got this idea from but it is completely wrong and isn't how basic logic works.




> X is the best method we have isn't a good argument for X being true or even reliable. How is that true if there's a good chance that we may just be in a simulation or something like that? If we are then everything we know about science is worthless. There's no way to know we're not and no reason to think what we experience is real. Not really, miracles tend to be unfalsifiable so people just assume they're untrue. Most conceptions of God is that he is timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. So yes, it's a category error.


You didn't ask me to prove why Science is reliable. You stated that Science can't be applied to God claims. The reliability of science is proven every single day whenever you use a computer, get in a car, or stand in a structure which isn't blown over by a strong gale.


People in your position always tend to fall back on the Solipsism argument in these kinds of conversations as though it is a 'gotcha' for the scientific method, when in reality it is a 'gotcha' for everything. Every worldview, every system for analysing the world, it reduces everything to meaninglessness.
Let's say that Science isn't worth anything because if we throw physical reality out of the window then it's not really describing or analysing anything.


Does that sound like an honest position to argue from? Sure, if you want to walk away from this conversation thinking that you have the better position because if Solipsism is real then science isn't worth anything, that's fine. 
Meanwhile, Scientists and philosophers will continue to work under the assumption that reality is real, that other people are real, and that actions have consequences and that beliefs inform actions.

Yes, God may be timeless and spaceless, but if that God interacts with the physical Universe in any way then that falls under the purview of scientific inquiry.
So when Theists claim that God flooded the world as evidence for Gods existence and Geologists can see no evidence of a worldwide flood, it isn't a category error to want Scientific evidence for the existence of God. 
If you are talking about a Deistic conception of God then that would be where logical proofs are more applicable like the cosmological argument.

If God interacts with physical reality then Scientific inquiry is applicable. Not a category error.






> It kind of is though, you seem to be arguing more against a God here due to the supposed lack of evidence. Well then what would you think the explanation is? What would a reasonable explanation look like? Cause I'm not seeing what metric you're using to gauge what constitutes as rational or irrational.


The metric(s) that I am using is either a logical syllogism which is internally consistent and matches the current scientific understanding of the outside world or a body of scientifically verified facts which all point towards one conclusion to the exclusion of any other.

I do not have to provide an alternative explanation and any other explanation would be irrelevant unless stating that explanation is a requirement of disproving the Theistic explanation.

As in - "The world was created by God 6000 years ago because the Bible says so." - "That's incorrect because we know that the Earth formed 4.5 Billion years ago because of scientific facts X, Y and Z."




> That's not really how the burden of proof works though, it's not a subjective thing. I think I see what you're saying but to say someone hasn't been convinced by what you say therefore hasn't met their burden of proof is incorrect (assuming that's what you're saying).


OP is (possibly) going to go and have conversations with Theists, or listen to their arguments.
I stated that he should have a reasonable burden of proof that they need to meet before he believes what they are saying to be true. The burden of proof isn't a set standard, if it isn't subjective then what is the objective burden of proof standard? How could there be an objective standard for the burden of proof? Even in law it isn't an objective thing.


For me, if someone could provide one scientifically verifiable fact which necessarily entailed the existence of a God or one logical syllogism which was flawless in demonstrating that a God must logically exist then that would be enough proof for me to believe.




> That's true if you have a rubric for what is and isn't irrational, but we don't when it comes to how we got here so it has no leg to stand on in this instance.


You're wrong about this for the same reason that you are wrong about needing to have an alternate explanation to say that someone is wrong about something.


What is rational comports with the facts, what is irrational does not.




> I'm confused as to how you're defining proof here. What's the difference between if you just saw it as opposed to everyone seeing it?


The more people who see it, the less reasonable it is to believe that there was a group hallucination, but just because lots of people saw something doesn't necessarily mean that what they believe they saw is accurate, there are other factors to consider.




> Yes, because they're one in the same.


Explained above.




> No, I have my reasons, I just haven't mentioned them to you yet.


Exactly my point. So in your first reply when you said:


"Well you've made a bunch of claims that you haven't backed up and don't you think it's much easier to sit there and judge other peoples arguments and write them off cause you're personally unconvinced then it is to come up with your own? The former doesn't seem like an honest way to have a conversation."


You assumed that I didn't have my own reasons. Now you see that your own reasons come out when you are asked to defend them (if you feel it is relevant, which I don't).




> I don't think you're understanding here. The null hypothesis could be life can only come from life is false, it could also be life can't come from non-life. One of these has to be true but they would both be the null hypothesis. I think absence of evidence is not evidence of absence works better.


Ah I see, I think I took the null hypothesis too much at face value.

Is it the job of the person who claims that God exists to provide evidence for their belief?
If someone is not convinced by that supposed evidence then what is their job? 
Do they have to defend why they are not convinced, or do they have to provide an alternate explanation? If so, why?


Also, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, except where evidence would be expected to be found.


Given that apologists have been trying to provide evidence of the existence of God for 2000 years and not a single bit of evidence has been provided.




> Didn't you previously argue that logical reasoning is flawed?


When I said that 'Logical proofs are quite easy to see the flaws in?' I think it was quite obvious that I meant supposed logical proofs for the existence of God.


I have also said:


"Someone must either provide logical or scientific proof"
"Keep your ... logical reasoning sound."
"I can logically back up everything I have said above"


Are you being charitable? Or are you cherry picking parts of what I say which could be interpreted to look like I'm saying something else?


----------



## integra (Nov 7, 2019)

the proof for god existing btw is you. 
you are it.
by the numbers, by all accounts of probability, it is more likely that god exists than you exist as you do in current.
you can search for the probabilities yourself no doubt.
yet you exist to choose to make the search or not, in stark defiance of the numbers that will or won't be viewed.


----------



## Folsom (Jun 20, 2018)

integra said:


> the proof for god existing btw is you.
> you are it.
> by the numbers, by all accounts of probability, it is more likely that god exists than you exist as you do in current.
> you can search for the probabilities yourself no doubt.
> yet you exist to choose to make the search or not, in stark defiance of the numbers that will or won't be viewed.


Metaxas:



> Astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces—gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the “strong” and “weak” nuclear forces—were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction—by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000—then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp.


Lawrence Krauss:



> It is true that a small change in the strength of the four known forces (but nowhere near as small as Metaxas argues) would imply that stable protons and neutrons, the basis of atomic nuclei, might not exist. (The universe, however, would—a rather large error in the Metaxas piece.) This is old news and, while it’s an interesting fact, it certainly does not require a deity.
> 
> Once again, it likely confuses cause and effect. The constants of the universe indeed allow the existence of life as we know it. However, it is much more likely that life is tuned to the universe rather than the other way around. We survive on Earth in part because Earth’s gravity keeps us from floating off. But the strength of gravity selects a planet like Earth, among the variety of planets, to be habitable for life forms like us. Reversing the sense of cause and effect in this statement, as Metaxas does in cosmology, is like saying that it’s a miracle that everyone’s legs are exactly long enough to reach the ground.
> 
> ...





> The mistake made by the author is akin to saying that if one looks at all the factors in my life that led directly to my sitting at my computer to write this, one would obtain a probability so small as to conclude that it is impossible that anyone else could ever sit down to compose a letter to the WSJ.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Folsom said:


> I can absolutely say that it is unreasonable to believe that you saw Big Foot flying on a Unicorn through the telescope, but that I don't know what you did see.
> If you are making the claim that X is real then you have to provide evidence for X.
> If I say that your evidence for why X is real is faulty I do not then have to say that Y is real instead for my reasons for why your evidence is faulty to have any credibility.
> 
> ...


You're equally making a claim by saying not X. You have to say what it is that happened though. Also the problem is if you weren't there then how do you know?

The defendant has to provide good evidence that they weren't if good evidence was presented that they were. The problem with what you're saying is the courts make no distinction between not guilty and innocent. Practically speaking not guilty is innocent cause they can't be convicted. Even though they still may in actuality be guilty. So what I'm saying is in such a situation it's not relevant for THEM. But it is still relevant for the courts. If the person is not guilty then they are unrelated to whoever committed the crime. So why should the defendant have to prove who did it?

As a side note I don't think you bringing up how the courts work is a valid argument. The courts also accept testimony as evidence and I assume that you wouldn't.

How is it proven if it can't get passed solipsism?

I'm just being honest here, you're pretending scientific understanding is the be all and end all for knowing things. My method is logic, I'm not throwing everything out the window btw.

But like I said, you're just pretending out of convenience.

I am a deist but like I said and you admitted, miracles are unfalsifiable. Regardless, even atheist historians for the most part agree that Jesus was a real man at least.

Even if he does it would be a category error because it can't be traced back to anything concrete as he isn't.

But not even science has that. To answer the question of the origin of the universe we have to throw away all that we know about science. We have to throw causality out the window and say things can happen just cause, literally something from nothing (which would be supernatural and anti-science) or we have to say the universe always existed, just cause.

You kind of do though as nothing fits the criteria of what you're talking about. So you essentially don't have a metric.

You're arguing against specific religious claims that I already agree with you on.

I see what you're saying, I'm just saying that "I'm not convinced" isn't an argument.

But you were unable to give an example of anything that does. Does what you're asking for even exist? Also this is wrong. If on September 10th 2001 I predicted that two planes would crash into the world trade center but I had no reason to think so that would be factual, but ultimately irrational for me to think.

Anecdotal evidence is useless to others but not to the person who experienced it. That's what people don't get about anecdotes. You're also just making an appeal to popularity fallacy here.

You never really gave me a metric. You've given no examples of anything that would fit what you said or proof that anything could. You also didn't tell me why you believe in naturalism beyond it being practical to believe.

Anybody making a claim has it, beliefs alone are not claims so no burden of proof. What you just mentioned would require it. To say X is irrational is a claim and would incur a burden of proof. Being unconvinced doesn't. 

Yes.

Arguments are evidence, if you disagree then please point to a scientific theory that doesn't rely on interpretation and argumentation.

I don't, you should have specified.

"There is no better tool for understanding the nature of the Universe, regardless of how much these people pretend there is.

Logical proofs are usually quite easy to see the flaws in."

You're saying scientific understanding trumps logic and then go on to say that logical proofs are easy to see the flaw in. This seems more related to why scientific understanding is better than logical reasoning than there being flaws in theistic arguments. You have to admit the latter doesn't follow as much.


----------



## integra (Nov 7, 2019)

Folsom said:


> Metaxas:
> 
> 
> 
> Lawrence Krauss:


in your own words now.
i find the idea that one should make a universe more hospitable incoherent with what has served progress here.
why would any meaningful progress be found by anything that achieves existence in an environment that doesn't test that existence?
you have to prove here, with actual live subjects, this universal improvement to habitability bearing better results than current universe.
this is an impossible thing to prove btw, with computer models already tainted by the limited perspective of the observer.


----------



## Folsom (Jun 20, 2018)

Aluminum Frost said:


> You're equally making a claim by saying not X. You have to say what it is that happened though. Also the problem is if you weren't there then how do you know?
> 
> The defendant has to provide good evidence that they weren't if good evidence was presented that they were. The problem with what you're saying is the courts make no distinction between not guilty and innocent. Practically speaking not guilty is innocent cause they can't be convicted. Even though they still may in actuality be guilty. So what I'm saying is in such a situation it's not relevant for THEM. But it is still relevant for the courts. If the person is not guilty then they are unrelated to whoever committed the crime. So why should the defendant have to prove who did it?
> 
> ...


How do you use logic without referencing scientific facts?

Can you disprove The Cosmological Argument, for instance, without referencing any scientific facts?

Can logic get past Solipsism? According to you, if it couldn't that would render it 'unproven', right?


----------



## Folsom (Jun 20, 2018)

integra said:


> in your own words now.
> i find the idea that one should make a universe more hospitable incoherent with what has served progress here.
> why would any meaningful progress be found by anything that achieves existence in an environment that doesn't test that existence?
> you have to prove here, with actual live subjects, this universal improvement to habitability bearing better results than current universe.
> this is an impossible thing to prove btw, with computer models already tainted by the limited perspective of the observer.


I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are asking.

Are you asking me to prove that another Universe with life in it could exist if the parameters at the beginning of the Universe were different at all?
Because if you are, I don't have to.

I'm not the one claiming that we only exist BECAUSE the parameters were as they were at the beginning of the Universe.
You have to prove that if they were different nothing would exist, which as you have pointed out, is impossible.


----------



## integra (Nov 7, 2019)

Folsom said:


> I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are asking.
> 
> Are you asking me to prove that another Universe with life in it could exist if the parameters at the beginning of the Universe were different at all?
> Because if you are, I don't have to.
> ...


i'm asking you to prove that that life would achieve meaningful progress with a perfect universe setup for it where it isn't tested for aptitude regularly.
basically here, you now have the better universe, now why exactly would life progress there, it would seemingly have no need to.
i am humoring the scientists thoughts that were not your own lol.


----------



## Folsom (Jun 20, 2018)

integra said:


> i'm asking you to prove that that life would achieve meaningful progress with a perfect universe setup for it where it isn't tested for aptitude regularly.
> basically here, you now have the better universe, now why exactly would life progress there, it would seemingly have no need to.
> i am humoring the scientists thoughts that were not your own lol.


Oh right, I think Lawrence can be quite tongue in cheek sometimes. He was probably basing it on the general idea that if planets and galaxies were moving slower, or not at all, then there would be less chaos in the Universe. 
If the parameter that he is describing was actually 0 then wouldn't there be no Universe, the Big Bang would have banged and then everything would be stuck still in that piece of space.

When he argued that a Universe can come from nothing, he admitted that he was being tongue in cheek with the term 'nothing' because we don't know that 'nothing' can exist.

So I'm not really sure what he means by that. I think it might have been a joke, but I could be wrong.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Folsom said:


> How do you use logic without referencing scientific facts?
> 
> Can you disprove The Cosmological Argument, for instance, without referencing any scientific facts?
> 
> Can logic get past Solipsism? According to you, if it couldn't that would render it 'unproven', right?


If A=B and B=C then A=C is logic, it is in no way scientific. Science is not logic, it's a set of arbitrary laws that happen to be in place.

If the premises are true then the conclusion is true, if not then it isn't a valid argument.

Yes, consciousness cannot be denied. Even if you're insane you still exist.


----------



## Convex (Jan 5, 2015)

Innocentia said:


> I don't know how you see _existence_ and _being_, if it's on the level of metaphysical truth like for most of religions and/or any essentialist view, but if it's on a constructivist view, so the view we have on existence is actually a social construction, yeah you sum it up pretty well. Religion is just like any speech which has the goal, directly or indirectly, to justify how things seems to be by actually creating a set of idea allowing us to see like they say it is. And introducing a logic or more which link those created perceptions of the world further down the road, we feel like our perceptions of the world are actually intentional, an intention above humanity. It feels like there has to be a logic behind all this, which can't be proven and will never be, but actually there're intentions, but human ones, or to be more precise, social ones.
> 
> So in conclusion, religions and ideologies and any speech on the world, is a social construction with a social intention embedded in it which is above you as an individual, but not above us as a society. But generalisation coming from our intuitions and feelings, and the generalisations being the rationalisation of them, are so common in the life of an individual, that it's no wonder that we want to see like it's more than just a individual thing or a social one. So it has to be a divine or a spiritual thing, an universal truth, but again you won't be able to prove it, that's what is universal objectivity, a speech which speak to your intuition. We build objectivity, universality, intuition and feelings, none of them are given, they're all social constructions. That's the constructivist point of view.
> 
> And then we should talk about the materialist point of view, because a pure constructivist view has its bias too. But for another time.


You say a lot of nothing


----------



## Convex (Jan 5, 2015)

New atheists quoting krauss, not even gonna argue on the internet


----------



## Folsom (Jun 20, 2018)

Aluminum Frost said:


> If A=B and B=C then A=C is logic, it is in no way scientific. Science is not logic, it's a set of arbitrary laws that happen to be in place.
> 
> If the premises are true then the conclusion is true, if not then it isn't a valid argument.
> 
> Yes, consciousness cannot be denied. Even if you're insane you still exist.


Its easy to say that with an example like A B and C. 

Please either affirm or deny the logic of the cosmological argument without referencing any scientific facts about the world.

Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
The universe began to exist;
Therefore:
The universe has a cause.

Are you saying that this isn't a purely logical argument? If not, do you know of an argument which is purely logical that either affirms or denies the existence of God? 
Or anything?

You cannot do logic without either having knowledge of or describing some part of the natural world unless its purely mathematical.

And Solipsism doesn't state that you dont exist. 
It states that maybe ONLY you exist. 

You cannot logically prove that you are not the only mind in existence.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Folsom said:


> Its easy to say that with an example like A B and C.
> 
> Please either affirm or deny the logic of the cosmological argument without referencing any scientific facts about the world.
> 
> ...


Yes, but it can be translated into real world things as well, A, B, and C is just a framework.

It is purely logical because it assumes the two premises are true and the conclusion follows from it. If the two premises are not true then there is no argument, if that makes sense.

That's not true, the facts are simply circumstances. 

I know.


----------



## Folsom (Jun 20, 2018)

Aluminum Frost said:


> Yes, but it can be translated into real world things as well, A, B, and C is just a framework.
> 
> It is purely logical because it assumes the two premises are true and the conclusion follows from it. If the two premises are not true then there is no argument, if that makes sense.
> 
> ...


Can you affirm or deny the cosmological argument?

Do you believe that it is logically true?

How would you go about determining if the two premises are true?

Do you see where I am coming from? 
Would we have avoided all of this if I had said something along the lines of, "An argument for the existence of God must be logically coherent and (where it isn't a category error) must be in alignment with current scientific understanding if the premises of the argument describe the state of physical reality." ?

And if you cannot use logic to prove that you are not the only mind in existence then how could you use logic to become a Deist?


----------



## Innocentia (Jun 30, 2019)

Convex said:


> You say a lot of nothing


Unlike you, oh wait... 

Or maybe you aren't interested and/or feel unconcerned by what I'm saying?

That's a possibility, wouldn't it be?


----------



## integra (Nov 7, 2019)

Folsom said:


> Can you affirm or deny the cosmological argument?
> 
> Do you believe that it is logically true?
> 
> ...


you are the whole universe.
is that a true statement or not?


----------



## Folsom (Jun 20, 2018)

integra said:


> you are the whole universe.
> is that a true statement or not?


It depends on how you define the terms. 

I understand that I am made up of matter and energy which is part of the universe and that we are conscious creatures which separate the universe into categories in order to better understand it, while these parts dont actually exist independent of us. So yes, physically speaking, that statement may be true depending on how you define the terms.

But I don't see how it is useful at all?

To me, I am an individual conscious experience which exists within the universe. 
Not the whole Universe, but part of its matter manifesting in human form.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Folsom said:


> Can you affirm or deny the cosmological argument?
> 
> Do you believe that it is logically true?
> 
> ...


Logically it is true if the two premises are true, I am unable to prove this beyond on a shadow of a doubt but current scientific knowledge points to it being true.

It wouldn't have to be in line with current scientific understanding, it would have to be the opposite actually. If it was the former than naturalism can't be falsified.

But I am of the view that we can trust logic. Easy, I can say it makes more sense and requires less assumptions.


----------



## Folsom (Jun 20, 2018)

Aluminum Frost said:


> Logically it is true if the two premises are true, I am unable to prove this beyond on a shadow of a doubt but current scientific knowledge points to it being true.
> 
> It wouldn't have to be in line with current scientific understanding, it would have to be the opposite actually. If it was the former than naturalism can't be falsified.
> 
> But I am of the view that we can trust logic. Easy, I can say it makes more sense and requires less assumptions.


So Scientific knowledge is needed to either affirm or deny the premises in that argument.
If not scientific knowledge, then what else?

Also,

All known species on Earth evolve
Dogs are a known species which exists on Earth
Therefore, dogs evolve as a species

This would be a meaningless logical argument if we didn't scientifically understand that the premises are actually true, we discovered that they were true by scientifically investigating evolution.

Here is what seems to be the fundamental difference between you and I.

You look at The Cosmological Argument and say that science seems to point in the direction of the premises being true. Therefore, you accept the argument and Deism (probably for other reasons as well, but I'd like it if we could stick with this one for now.)

I look at The Cosmological Argument and see two premises which are not scientifically proven. So I say that the logic isn't sound and that I don't know what happened before The Big Bang (yet, because we might figure it out at some point in the future).

If I am committing a category error by applying a scientific standard to the supposed cause of the beginning of the universe then how are you not doing the same by saying that, 'current scientific knowledge points to it being true.'

You can't say that I am wrong for using science as a standard for something being factually true when it comes to God when you are doing the exact same thing with premises about things that science can not currently investigate (nothingness).


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Folsom said:


> So Scientific knowledge is needed to either affirm or deny the premises in that argument.
> If not scientific knowledge, then what else?
> 
> Also,
> ...


But the laws are just circumstances is my point, the structure is logical. If the premises are true then the conclusion is true.

Current scientific knowledge points to them being true, that's the difference.

Because you're referring to two separate arguments that I've made and are conflating them. One is proof of God, the other is proof of the supernatural.

Science can never investigate nothingness by its very definition. There's nothing to investigate.


----------



## Folsom (Jun 20, 2018)

Aluminum Frost said:


> But the laws are just circumstances is my point, the structure is logical. If the premises are true then the conclusion is true.
> 
> Current scientific knowledge points to them being true, that's the difference.
> 
> ...


Is you saying the scientific knowledge points to a premise about nothingness being true a category error when you have just said that science cannot investigate nothingness?


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Folsom said:


> Is you saying the scientific knowledge points to a premise about nothingness being true a category error when you have just said that science cannot investigate nothingness?


I'm not sure what you're asking, can you rephrase it?


----------



## Folsom (Jun 20, 2018)

Aluminum Frost said:


> I'm not sure what you're asking, can you rephrase it?


You have said that applying a scientific standard to a timeless, spaceless God is a category error because it cannot be investigated scientifically, by definition.
I'm asking you if applying a scientific standard to nothingness is also a category error because it cannot be investigated scientifically, by definition.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Folsom said:


> You have said that applying a scientific standard to a timeless, spaceless God is a category error because it cannot be investigated scientifically, by definition.
> I'm asking you if applying a scientific standard to nothingness is also a category error because it cannot be investigated scientifically, by definition.


Yes, it's a category error to apply anything to try to understand nothing.


----------



## Folsom (Jun 20, 2018)

Aluminum Frost said:


> Yes, it's a category error to apply anything to try to understand nothing.


And you don't have to understand nothingness to say that it is likely that nothing can come from nothingness?


----------



## Whippit (Jun 15, 2012)

I don't know if you're serious on this, you seem to be on a topic-creation binge. But this was a question that consumed me when I was younger. Here's what I landed on... if God is real, and is good, then God is fair. If God doesn't make it absolutely overwhelmingly obvious to you that he's real and has some pretty clear rules, then in being fair God should be cool with you not believing in him.

If God is real, but not fair, then fuck him. Either way, do good for goodness sake.


----------



## Lucan1010 (Jul 23, 2018)

This is probably a thread best for the Religion thread, but I'll answer anyway.

While I personally believe in the existence of a God, I acknowledge there is no sure way of knowing whether or not there is a god(s). Sure, you can _believe_ with all your heart, but that isn't the same as knowing.

As a note on your list, not all religions are theistic. For example, Buddhism generally isn't, and Satanism is actually a form of atheism, but is still considered a religion. 

Research different religions, and find the one (or none) that makes the most sense to you. And remember, there are Conservative, Moderate, and Progressive varients of pretty much every religion out there.


----------



## Innocentia (Jun 30, 2019)

Convex said:


> That's what you did


I never heard about her and still I defend the exact same definition, she's not alone, I'm not. This is a *common* definition.

"Donna Haraway's Situated Knowledges

In Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective (1988), Donna Haraway argues that objectivity in science and philosophy is traditionally understood as a kind of disembodied and transcendent "conquering gaze from nowhere." She argues that this kind of objectivity, in which the subject is split apart and distanced from the object, is an impossible "illusion, a god trick." She demands a re-thinking of objectivity in such a way that, while still striving for "faithful accounts of the real world," we must also acknowledge our perspective within the world. She calls this new kind of knowledge-making "situated knowledges." Objectivity, she argues, "turns out to be about particular and specific embodiment and ... not about the false vision promising transcendence of all limits and responsibility". This new objectivity, "allows us to become answerable for what we learn how to see." Thus, Haraway is not only critiquing the idea that objectivity as we have long understood it is possible; she is also arguing that if we continue to approach knowledge-making in this way, then we wash our hands of any responsibility for our truth claims. In contrast, she argues, approaching knowledge-making from an embodied perspective forces us to take responsibility."

Haraway, Donna (Autumn 1988). "Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective"


----------



## Convex (Jan 5, 2015)

Innocentia said:


> I never heard about her and still I defend the exact same definition, she's not alone, I'm not. This is a *common* definition.
> 
> "Donna Haraway's Situated Knowledges
> 
> ...


That's a critique not a definition


----------



## Innocentia (Jun 30, 2019)

Convex said:


> That's a critique not a definition


Taken from the paragraph I just cited... "[...]Objectivity, she argues, "turns out to be about particular and specific embodiment and ... not about the false vision promising transcendence of all limits and responsibility". This new objectivity,[...]"

This definition is a critic of the old conception of what should and/or was objectivity, but it puts forward a new one. I advanced a new definition (which isn't really new now), which allow us to get around the problems linked to the old perspective of what is objectivity.

I have given my definition, take it or not, that was a definition which could use many arguments, the ones from Donna Haraway included, and Pierre Bourdieu, and Bruno Latour, and Judith Butler, and many others I read.

You want to defend your definition? So bring forth arguments.


----------



## Convex (Jan 5, 2015)

Innocentia said:


> Taken from the paragraph I just cited... "[...]Objectivity, she argues, "turns out to be about particular and specific embodiment and ... not about the false vision promising transcendence of all limits and responsibility". This new objectivity,[...]"
> 
> This definition is a critic of the old conception of what should and/or was objectivity, but it puts forward a new one. I advanced a new definition (which isn't really new now), which allow us to get around the problems linked to the old perspective of what is objectivity.
> 
> ...


It wasn't even an argument, it was "this is the new definition now" and sure, you can use that, but it isn't classically objective and they're definitely not talking about God 

Philosophy of religion does not use your definition


----------



## Innocentia (Jun 30, 2019)

Convex said:


> It wasn't even an argument, it was "this is the new definition now" and sure, you can use that, but it isn't classically objective and they're definitely not talking about God


I presented a definition, new or not, with arguments to defend this use over the other, the more classicaly understood definition of objectivity. What is important is to consider that I use a specific argumented definition of objectivity when I consider the objectivity of any judgement on the world, like moral. I don't impose this definition, you can actually stay with your definition, but you won't be able to understand what I'm trying to convey if you take your classical definition.

At the end of the day, objective morality, can be addressed in many perspective, I presented mine. So the question of wrong or true, a black and white perspective, cannot be followed if you're willing to address objective morality with another perspective than the one you consider true.

Remember, you asked in the first place: "Explain objective morality without God." Don't be surprised that God isn't there in my perspective, you asked for it.

But thanks to let me use my definition, I don't know if I really needed your approbation actually ^^, but be sure that I didn't want to prohibit another perspective on the question. It was just my perspective, backed up with some social science ressources, but still one perspective among others.



> Philosophy of religion does not use your definition


I'm not surprised at all, I'm actually quite relieved by this information, it means I have nothing to do with them and they have nothing to do with me. Probably the source of all my conflict with my father, who is quite a lot into the philosophy of religions when I think of this.


----------



## Convex (Jan 5, 2015)

Innocentia said:


> I presented a definition, new or not, with arguments to defend this use over the other


Didn't read past this, it wasn't argument just a statement


----------



## Innocentia (Jun 30, 2019)

Convex said:


> Didn't read past this, it wasn't argument just a statement


It's... really... so... pleasant... to discuss... with....you.....ugh.


----------



## TrueorFalse248 (Dec 16, 2019)

*Okay Nice, see some playful debates here. Between Agnostics vs. Atheists.*


----------



## Grey Wolf (Sep 9, 2017)

Just don't become someone who wants to blow me up or tell me how to live, and you're golden. :smug:

I'm more of a Christian Deist personally, which I saw was mentioned a few pages back. I believe in God, but I don't see evidence of divine intervention in our daily lives. Maybe God focuses on the big stuff, but I don't believe every birth and death is part of God's plan, or that every time you pray to win the lottery God is on the case.


----------



## MrsAndrewJacoby (Apr 11, 2013)

To the OP: I believe in God. I have seen proof of His existence. It is all around us. For me, just considering the complexity of something as seemingly insignificant as a single-celled organism is all the proof that I need. The interconnectedness of the Earth as a whole speaks to me of a world that was clearly designed, not something that spontaneously came about. But not everyone sees things this way. If you genuinely seek to know if there is a God, my advice is to ask God to show you that He exists and guide you to a religion.


----------



## Rascal01 (May 22, 2016)

TrueorFalse248 said:


> *Hiya!**What if* there is a powerful being out there, you know that guy in space, with magical powers knowing our thoughts? and if I become religious which religion should I join: Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism etc?
> 
> *Is God real???*


You have asked a fair question. You need a place to start your search. I suggest that you find a Bible, go to the New Testament, which is the second half of the Bible, and read Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. Those are short mini-books that are the grass roots basics and easy reading. I like Luke’s writing style but whatever works for you.

You gotta start somewhere as you look for answers. This is as good a place as any. You can branch out from there. PM me if you have any questions.

Good luck with your quest.


----------



## unimportant (Feb 12, 2020)

Innocentia said:


> This is almost never brought up in religions and in moral philosophy


This is, off course, not true. I just read through this essay and you are profoundly politicized. 



Innocentia said:


> I'm for permanent and international revolution


As shown in this quote. (Confirming what was already clear from your other post.)

You mentioned authors devoid of any credibility, mixed with other authors you have no chance of understanding any time soon...Your discourse degenerates into reproduction of slogans. It's presumptuous of you to think many of us haven't read all those authors years ago...Not one single sentence or paragraph of yours managed to impress me, or innovate anything.


----------



## Innocentia (Jun 30, 2019)

unimportant said:


> This is, off course, not true. I just read through this essay and you are profoundly politicized.


So I did study philosophy and was taught protestant christianism. And I was talking about the conception sociologists have, with, in part, the feminist epistemology, to build a system of determination regarding the people within social fields and their _habitus_, which is the social determination linked to the social belonging and their history of the individual.

This, is never brought up in moral philosopy and religion, I never learn that white people had the _habitus_ to keep themselves above people of color, I never learn that to be christian was coming with the _habitus_ to exclude LGBTQIA+ people. I've not been taught Marx, or Fanon, or Foucault. Now we could say that my professor were right-wing, and they were, but this is something which happens far more often in philosophy degree, than in sociology and anthropology, where we discuss the social situation of the writer, of the one who pretend to bring "objectivity".

So yeah, what I'm saying is mostly true, been there, done that. I don't see the link with my statement and being politicized, is that a problem?




> As shown in this quote. (Confirming what was already clear from your other post.)


I'm openly anarcho-communist, mixing queer theory (Butler) and materialist transfeminism and taking a lot of concepts and models from sociology and political anthropology. I try to be transparent as I can, whatever question you have regarding me, I'll answer it openly.



> You mentioned authors devoid of any credibility, mixed with other authors you have no chance of understanding any time soon...Your discourse degenerates into reproduction of slogans. It's presumptuous of you to think many of us haven't read all those authors years ago...Not one single sentence or paragraph of yours managed to impress me, or innovate anything.


Some of the author I speak of are not well known, that's for sure, like Georges Balandier, but in french political anthropology, you can't miss him, but that's very specific, I'll give you that. But then I don't of whom you speaking of, I remember throwing the names of Foucault, Marx, Bourdieu, Latour, Butler, Balandier, Eribon, Didier Fassin, Robin DiAngelo (still didn't read), Bob Altemeyer. I didn't read Marx, but he's often cited in the books I've read, and, for example, Bruno Latour critisize him for a big part. And I'm reading a big one from Pierre Bourdieu, he's hard to read. Most of those people are well respected in their circles and have a relative influence outside of their field, so I don't know what you're talking about when you say that they're devoid of any credibility. Or of the authors I have no chance of understanding, I'm reading their books, and I speak with students in sociology, and I'm not far off the mark. And unless you're speaking french, I'm not quite sure a lot of you read them, but I'm honored that a lot of you read them, we should understand eachother better.

I'm not here to impress anyone, or innovate, I'm here to bring a sociological and anthropological point of view, and stuff I take from my personal experiences, why should I try to impress someone?

The idea of permanent revolution has a long history and thus many meanings, I take the one which follows a serie of articles from Georges Balandier, the book is called (my traduction) "Meaning/direction and power" in french "Sens et puissance". The idea is the following. We're unable to maintain a system as it is, first we never exactly copy our ancestors and the rituals which have been transmited through generation and generation. That's the internal dynamic of any society, even if the people want so much to exactly do the same as their ancestor, they'll fail. Now the environnement in which a society is ,change, that's the external dynamic that every society have to deal with.

From there, we can think in term of political adaptation, people will reorganize the internal structure and the external structure to adapt themselves to new situation (external) and to the modification of behaviour within the repetition of the rituals which structure the society (internal). The external and the internal order are "covered" with a sacrality, a speech which comes from the older generation, which justifiy the current order. This sacrality will be reinterpreted with the new generation to be adapted to the new problematic the society encounter.

But there's a moment where the sacrality is so old that we to rewrite it, and as such, loose every tension which have been going on with older generation, and the time required to justify the new interpretation of the sacrality (the sacrality can be oral and/or written). When this happen, we speak of a revolution, the reform or the suberversions weren't enough to adapt the society to the new problematics, and we were held by the old sacrality. Transgressions are at play in those moment.

The idea of Georges Balandier, is that we have many temporalities with many sacralities which justify all sort of behaviour and current political structures, and that it would be good to rewrite all the part which are holding us from adapting ourselves to the new problematics we encounter now. As such we require an history of those sacralities and temporalities, to exhaust the interpretations, to look at all the subversions which have been, and to see if we, in the end, require such speech which justify nothing but new way to act. wWhich could begin anew, with a new speech, new words, a new sacrality. This tension between the now and the age of the sacrality, when the distance is so big, the society require a revolution, and the more we wait, bloodier will be the revolution, and greater the risk of failure.

As such, the idea is to make a revolution before we need to comes to violence, and as such Balandier, justifiy the use of the concept "permanent revolution" as to continually ask ourselves, if we don't need to rewrite a sacrality and to dump the old ones. He's perfectly aware that some revolutions were blind to what world they wanted make anew, which political order, some more than other, but that's where comes sociology and history. We need to create a new world, to do a revolution, while being aware of the social determinations and the continuity which has been given through times, it requires to make a solid bridge between the now and the future.

But further is the distance between the old sacrality and the new one, longer is the road, more chances we have to fear to loose everything we got from before (risk of counter-revolution, far right extremism), more chances we rest ourselves on the old sacrality and the old social determination (conservatism) and thus the revolution become just a disaster. The world isn't anew, the society is destroyed, and no future ahead. Notice that, such disaster isn't that frequent, there've been serious backlashes, but societies don't collapse that often.

Now we could try to conceive an alternative model to this, but I didn't heard of any that was promoted which fited so well with the sociological and anthropological researches. And maybe things aren't that much more complex, it's still very complex because it's a surface model, we didn't dwelve into the content of our internal and external order, our sacralities and ambiguities (the subversions). But I think we get the general idea of Georges Balandier works here.


----------



## TrueorFalse248 (Dec 16, 2019)

*If you’ve made it this far in starting your own religion it means you’ve assembled a nice group of hopeless people desperately avoiding the Uncomfortable Truth by studying a bunch of bullshit you’ve made up, ignoring their friends, and telling their families to fuck off.*

Now it’s time to get serious.

The beauty of a religion is that the more you promise your followers salvation, enlightenment, world peace, perfect happiness, or whatever, the more they will fail to live up to that promise. And the more they fail to live up to that promise, the more they’ll blame themselves and feel guilty. And the more they blame themselves and feel guilty, the more they’ll do whatever you tell them to do to
make up for it.

Famous Atheist Mark Manson Ouote:

*Every religion runs into the sticky problem of evidence. You can tell people all this great stuff about God and spirits and angels and whatnot, but if the entire town burns down and your kid loses an arm in a fishing accident, well, then . . . oops. Where was God?*

Throughout history, authorities have expended a lot of effort to hide the lack of evidence supporting their religion and/or to punish anyone who dared question the validity of their faith-based values. It’s for this reason that, like most atheists, Nietzsche loathed spiritual religions. Natural philosophers, as scientists were called in Isaac Newton’s time, decided that the most reliable faith-based beliefs were those that had the most evidence supporting them. Evidence became the God Value, and any belief that was no longer supported by evidence had to be altered to account for the new observed reality. This produced a new religion: science. Science is arguably the most effective religion because it is the first religion that is able to evolve and improve upon itself. It is open to anybody and everybody. It is not moored to a single book or creed. It is not beholden to some ancient land or people. It is not tethered to a supernatural spirit whose existence cannot be proven or disproven. It is an ongoing, ever-changing body of evidencebased beliefs, one that is free to mutate, grow, and shift as the evidence dictates. The scientific revolution changed the world more than anything before or since. It has reshaped the planet, lifted billions out of disease and poverty, and improved every aspect of life. It is not an exaggeration to suggest that science may be the only demonstrably good thing humanity has ever done
for itself. (Thank you, Francis Bacon, thank you, Isaac Newton, you fucking titans.) Science is singularly responsible for all the greatest inventions and advances in human history, from medicine and agriculture to education and commerce.

But science did something else even more spectacular: it introduced to the world the concept of growth. For most of human history, “growth” wasn’t a thing. Change occurred so slowly that everyone died in pretty much the same economic condition they were born in. The average human from two thousand years ago experienced about as much economic growth in his lifetime as we experience in
six months today. People would live their entire lives, and nothing changed—no new developments, inventions, or technologies. People would live and die on the same land, among the same people, using the same tools, and nothing ever got better. In fact, things like plagues and famine and war and dickhead rulers with large armies often made everything worse. It was a slow, grueling,
miserable existence.

And with no prospect for change or a better life in this lifetime, people drew their hope from spiritual promises of a better life in the next lifetime. Spiritual religions flourished, and dominated daily life. Everything revolved around the Church (or synagogue or temple or mosque or whatever). Priests and holy men were the arbiters of social life because they were the arbiters of hope. They
were the only ones who could tell you what God wanted, and God was the only one who could promise any salvation or a better future Therefore, these holy men dictated everything that was of value in society.

Then science happened, and shit got cray-cray. Microscopes and printing presses and internal combustion engines and cotton gins and thermometers and, finally, some goddamn medicine that actually worked. Suddenly, life got better. More important, you could see life getting better. People used better tools, had access to more food, were healthier, and made more money. *Finally, you could look back ten years and say, “Whoa! Can you believe we used to live like that?”* And that ability to look back and see progress, see growth happen, changed how people viewed the future. It changed how they viewed themselves. Forever.
Now, you didn’t have to wait until death to improve your lot. You could improve it here and now. And this implied all sorts of wonderful things. Freedom, for one: How were you going to choose to grow today? But also responsibility: because you could now control your own destiny, you had to take responsibility for that destiny. And of course course, equality: because if a big patriarchal God isn’t dictating who deserves what, that must mean that either no one deserves anything or everyone deserves everything. These were concepts that had never been voiced before. With the prospect of so much growth and change in this life, people no longer relied on spiritual beliefs about the next life to give them hope.

Instead, they began to invent and rely upon the ideological religions of their time. This changed everything. Church doctrines softened. People stayed home on Sundays. Monarchs conceded power to their subjects. Philosophers began to openly question God—and somehow weren’t burned alive for doing so. It was a golden age for human thought and progress. And incredibly, the progress begun in that age has only accelerated and continues to accelerate to this day. 

The scientific revolution eroded the dominance of spiritual religions and made way for the dominanceof ideological religions. And this is what concerned Nietzsche. Because for all of the progress and wealth and tangible benefits that ideological religions produce, they lack something that spiritual religions do not: infallibility. Once believed in, a supernatural deity is impervious to worldly affairs. Your town could burn down. Your mother could make a million dollars and then lose it all again. You could watch wars and diseases come and go. None of these experiences directly contradicts a belief in a deity, because supernatural entities are evidence-proof. And while atheists see this as a bug, it can also be a feature. The robustness of spiritual religions means that the shit could hit the proverbial fan, and your psychological stability would remain intact. Hope can be preserved because God is always
preserved.

Not so with ideologies. If you spend a decade of your life lobbying for certain governmental reform, and then that reform leads to the deaths of tens of thousands of people, that’s on you. That piece of hope that sustained you for years is shattered. Your identity, destroyed. Hello darkness, my old friend.

Ideologies, because they’re constantly challenged, changed, proven, and then disproven, offer scant psychological stability upon which to build one’s hope. And when the ideological foundation of our belief systems and value hierarchies is shaken, it throws us into the maw of the Uncomfortable Truth.

Nietzsche was on top of this before anybody else. He warned of the coming existential malaise that technological growth would bring upon the world. In fact, this was the whole point of his “God is dead” proclamation.“God is dead” was not some obnoxious atheistic gloating, as it is usually interpreted today. No. It was a lament, a warning, a cry for help. *Who are we to determine the meaning and significance of our own existence? Who are we to decide what is good and right in the world? How can we bear this
burden?*


----------



## Eren Jaegerbomb (Nov 13, 2015)

When somebody finds the answer tell me.


----------



## APBReloaded (Mar 8, 2019)

No human is an expert on such a thing. The truth is that there's no way to really understand for sure, and if suddenly all the answers we're looking for were suddenly brought to us, there still would be things we're just not allowed to know. Humanity can't accept that, they want to know everything there is to know, they don't want to admit that we can't know all.

Faith and belief can create some amazing power in people, and at the very least, can motivate people to do better.

I wouldn't question the things that give me power, and I would be suspicious of anyone who questions what gives me power.

Humanity needs to stop wondering so much about the truth of this or that, and start wondering more about how they can make someone's life better the next day.


----------



## Eren Jaegerbomb (Nov 13, 2015)

APBReloaded said:


> No human is an expert on such a thing. The truth is that there's no way to really understand for sure, and if suddenly all the answers we're looking for were suddenly brought to us, there still would be things we're just not allowed to know. Humanity can't accept that, they want to know everything there is to know, they don't want to admit that we can't know all.
> 
> Faith and belief can create some amazing power in people, and at the very least, can motivate people to do better.
> 
> ...


I haven't thought about it like this before.

Beautiful statement.


----------



## Innocentia (Jun 30, 2019)

APBReloaded said:


> No human is an expert on such a thing. The truth is that there's no way to really understand for sure, and if suddenly all the answers we're looking for were suddenly brought to us, there still would be things we're just not allowed to know. Humanity can't accept that, they want to know everything there is to know, they don't want to admit that we can't know all.
> 
> Faith and belief can create some amazing power in people, and at the very least, can motivate people to do better.
> 
> ...


If we link truth, knowledge and sciences on one side, and we give ourselves the goal to make tomorrow or, in general, the future, better as today, on the other side. The "how" to achieve our goal have its answers in what we could call truth, but it's just sciences actually.

I understand that you're critizising the goal to achieve truth for the sake of knowing "existential" "truth", like God, the purpose of nature or humanity, or meaning of life, and I agree on this critic. But to concern ourselves only on the goal to make the next day better for others, whatever the method, like: "There're morals value in the bible, as such we can expect that if we taught christianism, the world will be better." This causality is non-existent. The rejection of God as an explanatory principle is a consequence that we don't hold the mean to make the world better through the affirmation of the christian tenet. And it shouldn't be made a goal, to reject God, or any "existential" "truth". We have less power on the world when we bring up God as an explanation, or nature, or the meaning of life. As such faith and beliefs are impediments to achieve our goals.

But let's make things clear, everyone have to take their path the way they want, and as such embrace faith and beliefs, like everyone does, we just have to keep it in a way that it doesn't blind us on the research of the causalities, and the grasp we can have on them.


----------



## Convex (Jan 5, 2015)

Innocentia said:


> If we link truth, knowledge and sciences on one side, and we give ourselves the goal to make tomorrow or, in general, the future, better as today, on the other side. The "how" to achieve our goal have its answers in what we could call truth, but it's just sciences actually.
> 
> I understand that you're critizising the goal to achieve truth for the sake of knowing "existential" "truth", like God, the purpose of nature or humanity, or meaning of life, and I agree on this critic. But to concern ourselves only on the goal to make the next day better for others, whatever the method, like: "There're morals value in the bible, as such we can expect that if we taught christianism, the world will be better." This causality is non-existent. The rejection of God as an explanatory principle is a consequence that we don't hold the mean to make the world better through the affirmation of the christian tenet. And it shouldn't be made a goal, to reject God, or any "existential" "truth". We have less power on the world when we bring up God as an explanation, or nature, or the meaning of life. As such faith and beliefs are impediments to achieve our goals.
> 
> But let's make things clear, everyone have to take their path the way they want, and as such embrace faith and beliefs, like everyone does, we just have to keep it in a way that it doesn't blind us on the research of the causalities, and the grasp we can have on them.


More word salad bullshit, you barely have any coherence


----------

