Food for Thought: A Discourse on Deities

[Joseph Sweeney]

@Aldin

Going to include a couple of quotes, but not too many.

Determinism:

They can also say there is something non-physical and non-measurable which allows for genuine choice to exist. In other words there is a "me" that is separate from the pure cause and effect of the physical. Call it quantum mechanics, multi-dimensionality, or whatever, this is basically a belief in something that does not fit with the things we "know" from science. It does, however, match with what we "feel". I have no issues with this stance. I simply note that if the atheist will allow for non-physical, non-measurable things to exist, then they have removed the burden of proof from me to demonstrate that very thing when I talk about God.

But I'm not doing that. Consciousness, like the beginning of the universe, is something I currently shrug my shoulders at. But even if atheists were coping out without way of evidence or reason, that doesn't justify you doing so as well. The atheist would still be wrong to not prove their claim, just as you would.

Belief and Choice:

Well see, I think on this matter you sometimes equivocate two separate definitions of the word belief, and that causes a bit of confusion. You often try and compare the belief in the existence of something, to the belief or trust that something will do something. For instance, one can believe in god, or one can believe that his car functions properly, I believe was the example you gave. The two are fundamentally different because we know the car exists and how it is supposed to function; at this point we just trust that it will do its job. On the subject of a deity, we don't know it exists.

Yes, I wanted you to interact with Santa Clause. But not in that manner. I want you to choose to believe in Santa Clause. Because if you can't, then clearly belief is a direct product of knowledge. If you can, then we can talk about belief being a choice.

Your example of a child doesn't seem to address the issue. Yes, some children are convinced by different amount of evidence, but that doesn't in anyway follow that belief is a choice. I don't see why it would imply that at all. The child is simply shaped by other knowledge and experiences or flaws in reasoning he or she possesses that lead that child to the illogical conclusion that Santa exist. The fact that reason eventually sways them shows that it is reason, not choice, that determine belief.

Let's try this. If belief was dictated by choice, and not by knowledge, then we'd have a vastly different world. The bank robber would choose to believe the police didn't exist, I would choose to believe that Karma exists, and everyone, no matter who they are, would choose to believe that Santa exist (who doesn't want presents? Coal included) But we don't see that in the world. Instead, for the most part, we see people directly swayed by their knowledge. Is their knowledge often incorrect? Is their reasoning flawed? For sure. But the reason people's beliefs tend to coincide with reality and experience is because beliefs are directly influenced by these things.

On the last point of determinism -- no. If belief is forced by knowledge we do not wind up at universal determinism. And for my argument to work, I do not need to embrace universal determinism. Is existential belief deterministic? Yes. Is choice in what game I play, what I eat, who I date, or where I go deterministic by way of the argument I am making? No. And there's no common link between existential belief and those other items to suggest that by making existential belief deterministic the others must also be. So when you ask, "What would not be deterministic in a world where we don't choose what we believe?" my answer is everything save belief.

Does Choice Invalidate My Argument

Honestly, your example is moot. Again. Because it's an inaccurate comparison. You are neither omnipotent, nor omniscient. Supposing I grant you benevolence towards your sister, you still lack the knowledge of what it takes to convince her, and you may even lack the power to do so.

Deities, Deities...

I don't see how your sister observing different evidence and making logical errors equates to choice. Her conclusion, while flying in the face of modern science, is one many people come to because they don't understand the evidence, or make some error while trying to reason through it. I've seen it in a number of anti-vac people, and I don't see any reason to accept that it is a choice. They seem wholly convinced by way of erred reason.

Once we start talking about the creator of the universe, we get to examine the available evidence and decide what to believe. The Christian God accounts for that evidence in a way which I find believable. Obviously the constructs of the eternal gunslingers and fsm do not - since both have no correlation to the evidence and are constructs designed to make light of the Christian God. We aren't doing a comparative religions study here, so I hope it will suffice to say that for me personally, after having examined many potential creators, I have found the Christian God to be the most compelling.

This stems from your earlier quote of, "I don't need to demonstrate my god is the only option, only that he is an option." And my contention here is that in order to show that reasonable disbelief in the existence of your god does not exist, you do need to demonstrate this point. Otherwise, many other feasible options exist, and your god is only a pick out of the hat.

Finally, as to the question of whether an atheistic beginning or a Christian one makes the most sense, I can only reply that the atheist response is some variation of "I don't know", while the rationale presented in the Bible is cogent. It doesn't make me right, but if I'm looking for an explanation, the place where I find the best one is in the Bible.

And Ra was an explanation for why the sun rose and set. So yeah, you have an explanation, but "I don't know" allows us to be a lot more inquisitive than "I have the answer because no one else has one."

So my issue at this point is that you keep hearkening to these examples that are not directly related the question at hand. When dealing with existential belief, I demonstrate that when we know something to exist, that existence cannot be denied. I've touched on this time and again with examples of trying to disbelieve in my girlfriend, or have you disbelieve in a relative. But the results are clear that when we know of something, we cannot choose to deny knowledge of it. We can lie to other people about it, but we cannot choose to not believe.

So barring all other examples about cars, anti-vaccination, or what have you, let's deal with the examples directly correlated with belief. Because the other examples aren't good examples as they fail to address the question of choosing to believe in someone's existence. My example does. How do you address or handle this? Are you able to choose to accept or deny your wife's existence?

The answer is no. You cannot choose that. By way of extrapolation then, it follows that one cannot choose to lack belief in something they know to exist. Ergo, the existential belief is not a choice, it is a product of knowledge, and the argument works fine.

Until this issue can be addressed, I don't think you have ground to stand on to deny the deterministic nature of existential belief.

And if you claim that it's different for god then it is for humans, that we can't have knowledge of god the way we have knowledge of other humans, then you effectively support my conclusion. Because you limit either god's omniscience or omnipotence.

~JS

[Dr.Goomonkey]

I'm going to take a move out of Ollie's playbook and respond to one small piece of a large conversation.

Originally Posted by Joseph Sweeney

And if you claim that it's different for god then it is for humans, that we can't have knowledge of god the way we have knowledge of other humans, then you effectively support my conclusion. Because you limit either god's omniscience or omnipotence.

While I think that the argument that it is different for god than it is for humans could be valid, I can't really argue why from a logical base. I can argue against the final sentence, though, by pulling one of the options from your first post.

If there is no threat to humans by way of non-belief, this could all stand with an omniscient, omnipotent God. In fact, I think it would also be valid if there is threat to humans by way of non-belief, if God has it out for some people (which, judging to my limited biblical knowledge seems to be the case if Yahweh is real and accurately represented in the Bible).

[Joseph Sweeney]

Originally Posted by Aldin

EDIT I will respond to JS later after I have slept on it

Yeah, if I don't respond for a while it's just because I have work, and then sleep, and social commitments. So sorry my replies can take a while.

Originally Posted by Dr.Goomonkey

I'm going to take a move out of Ollie's playbook and respond to one small piece of a large conversation.

While I think that the argument that it is different for god than it is for humans could be valid, I can't really argue why from a logical base. I can argue against the final sentence, though, by pulling one of the options from your first post.

If there is no threat to humans by way of non-belief, this could all stand with an omniscient, omnipotent God. In fact, I think it would also be valid if there is threat to humans by way of non-belief, if God has it out for some people (which, judging to my limited biblical knowledge seems to be the case if Yahweh is real and accurately represented in the Bible).

Well right, which is covered in the conclusion of the argument. If God has it in for people then he isn't benevolent.

But my post was specifically aimed at the claim that we *cannot* know God the way we know humans. And that only stands in opposition to God's omnipotence and omniscience. Whether or not he is all loving, or whether or not non-belief is a threat to humanity isn't directly correlated to the claim I was attempting to preempt. Because benevolence and threat to humanity aren't related to what we can know, those are related to if God would want us to know. And my specific claim dealt with can.

~JS

[Dr.Goomonkey]

Originally Posted by Joseph Sweeney

Well right, which is covered in the conclusion of the argument. If God has it in for people then he isn't benevolent.

But my post was specifically aimed at the claim that we *cannot* know God the way we know humans. And that only stands in opposition to God's omnipotence and omniscience. Whether or not he is all loving, or whether or not non-belief is a threat to humanity isn't directly correlated to the claim I was attempting to preempt. Because benevolence and threat to humanity aren't related to what we can know, those are related to if God would want us to know. And my specific claim dealt with can.

~JS

While I see the logic you're using, I'm going to turn all those points around at you, even though I'm arguing entirely for the sake of argument in this post and not because I actually believe the ideas I'm suggesting.

Your definition of omnipotent seems to be taking omni to its very farthest reaches. Now I point back to Sean Murray, the creator of No Man's Sky. While he is far from a God, he could be called omnipotent in reference to his creation. Sure, his coding skills limit his potential, and the very nature of code is sure to impact what he is capable of, but in the end all of his creation comes from him, thus allowing for a somewhat limited definition of omnipotent to be viable.

Does omnipotent mean you can do everything, or do everything within some boundaries of what is possible to do? Same question as far as omniscient. My answer to both of these is that, in reality, I don't know; but I think both definitions for both words are useful in these kinds of discussions (as useful as anything is in these discussions).

So, let's put in our head a God that is omnipotent and omniscient, but limited to what is possible to do and know (you don't have to try to believe in him, just imagine ). Let's throw all-loving into the mix, too. Can you get a God that has it out for some people in this scenario? Sure. If in creating people it is necessary for there to be the evil that we see in the world, then all of this can work together. If He loves everyone, then he would want as many of them to be happy as possible. If some of these people have to be crummy and will necessarily bring down the happiness of others, in this life and the next, then an all-loving God would have to have it out for those people for the sake of the many. He might feel terribly about having to do this, but nonetheless his omni-powers are limited to what is possible and this is the best possible mode of operation for him.


Additionally, I think that the idea that we can't know whether or not a deity exists is kind of a common sense argument. We don't have concrete evidence pointing toward a deity, and it is impossible to find concrete evidence against a deity (yeah, yeah, FSM and Six Gamblers and all that, I definitely agree that those are just as likely as any individual religion's God or Gods). Belief in God vs. belief in your girlfriend are fundamentally different, because if there is a God they clearly either have hidden themselves from us and demand faith, or are somehow incapable of proving their existence to us; but you can see your girlfriend and we have concrete evidence for scientific theories even if I individually don't really understand them. I don't think them being fundamentally different negates your idea that belief is not a choice, though.